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.

Strategies & Market Trends : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Pitera who wrote (5753)	3/1/2002 1:20:41 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 33421

Hi John, Re: Corpororate Greed and Social Neglect The attitude of the present Administration is reprehensible with regard to these off shore tax swindles. I'm completely in agreement with Mark Shields and Charles Grassley. The corporate chieftains who've crafted the enabling legislation on this just take the rest of us for chumps. Figuring we can pay for the War Racket, infrastructure, social costs while they take the money and run. Disgusting free loaders is what they are. -Ray

To: John Pitera who wrote (5753)	3/1/2002 1:48:04 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33421

"Only little people pay taxes." --Leona Helmsley Hi John, More commentary on the corporate tax swindlers: Message 17135665 The Bush mafia motto? "Taxes are for Suckers".

To: John Pitera who wrote (5753)	3/1/2002 2:09:28 PM
From: hugh thorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

Hey John, i know you only posted the following article. "Thanks to David Cay Johnston of The New York Times, we learn that for a few thousand dollars in a paper transaction, a U.S. drilling company like Cooper Industries of Houston (which bills itself as "a responsible corporate citizen," because, "we believe giving back is good business") will reduce its tax bill by 40 percent or $54 million" It is always amazing how we question the press when they publish ideas we don't like, yet embrace the same group when they publish articles like the above. To suggest that a couple thousand dollars of paper work is all that is required to move significant profits offshore is on the verge of reckless reporting. The US were much quicker on the ball than our tax system at making the "off shore hoops" quite a hurdle. Now, that is not to say it cannot be done, that being rather self evident, but it requires significanlty more presence in the other jurisdiction then is implied by our NYT writer. regards,

To: John Pitera who wrote (5753)	3/1/2002 2:20:52 PM
From: Logain Ablar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33421

Ray: Your way out of line here and this is not the thread for it. I politely pointed out the competitive and legit reasons why companies move to Bermuda a few weeks ago (actual facts and not a reporter biased position). You may not like it but again its not the US subsidiaries that are sheltered from US taxes BUT their foreign subsidiaries and their foreign earnings which under a US holding company arrangement are subject to US taxes @ the holding level. Those US companies compete against foreign companies that typically are subsidized by their foreign governments in both favorable taxes and loans to keep people employed. Look @ Japan, Germany and France to name a few. Do you think Airbus could compete with Boeing if it was not heavily subsidized. Just one example. How about the weakening of the yen so Japan can export itself out of its problems. Look @ all the manufacturers going belly up now (last month was the first uptick in the manufacturing sector in 19 months). Your implying the companies should just do business as usual and continue to cut jobs and go out of business. There are many unintened consequences to the strong dollar policy. You may want to blame Bush and this administration for our current ills but the facts don't support it. Fact 1 - This tax break has been around since before Reagan became president. Its only being looked @ now due to the stress the manufacturers are under. Fact 2 - The manufacturing sector has been in official recession since August of 2000. Fact 3 - The first major manufacture to take advantage of the Bermuda favorable tax structure was Tyco. Fact 4 - The FSC which allows US manufactures favorable US tax treatment to compete outside the US is under attack by the European Union. Fact 5 - The 1987 tightened controls on financial service companies and CFC from moving off shore to avoid taxes. Although this would not impact the present Bermuda situation. Since you seem to be an expert I assume you know what the FSC and CFC's are. So if we take this all the way through it sounds like your in favor of hindering the manufactures ability to compete financially which means more shut downs so they can lay off more US workers. Wait till GE and GM follow