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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (255234)	5/15/2002 2:02:43 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

Well for eight years the stupidest that ever was did not buy enough defense insurance and now all Americans must pay. Yes I believe the US should not tax earnings from operations outside the US. Eliminating this tax is a good idea. tom watson tosiwmee

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (255234)	5/15/2002 10:17:02 PM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 769670

Gerard, While I do not condone Stanley Works going offshore, another way of looking at it, is that they are not taking advantage of a tax loophole, but closing a government "loophole" that allows the government to receive increased revenues. What I read, is that if Stanley makes say a hammer in Mexico, and sells it (for example) in Argentina, it used to have to pay federal income taxes off of the profit; even though neither the hammer, or the money ever touched the United States. By moving offshore, they can avoid paying taxes on income from transactions that do not occur in the United States. By simply changing where the company is incorporated, they can avoid paying United States taxes on products that have never touched the United States (or Subsidiary Companies). I do not know how other countries handle income from companies with offshore subsidiaries.