'The Rev. Ken MacHarg, who served as a pastor in six countries around the world, says that he tells people that moving overseas will “mess you up for the rest of your life. You’re constantly torn between those places, and you’re a changed person.”'
This is the problem for 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE and those 5% US EX PATS being sent home during these several years as US CITIES become those FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. Our US EX-PATS coming home after these few decades building Foreign Economic Zones overseas may think they do not care if AMERICA is made that INDEPENDENT CITY STATE ruled by global 1%. That's how things have been overseas-----why not in AMERICA?
REAL LEFT social progressives fought against US corporations being allowed to go overseas, we shouted for our displaced US citizens to rebuild our US cities AND we fought to have those REPATRIATION CORPORATE TAXES come back to maintain our US cities.
THE NEXT PHASE OF MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE WITH 5G SMART CITIES AND GROWING CLIMATE CHANGE AND DECLINING NATURAL RESOURCES WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF BEING THAT EX PAT TO GLOBAL 1% EMPIRE-BUILDING.
We hope our 99% of US EX-PATS coming home understand how MOVING FORWARD changes in 21st century---the exclusions of mass categories of employment with all revenue spending going to building planetary mining slave colonies------no resources for those not inside a SMART CITY.
Expat Repatriation Blues: Expats Struggle With the Dark Side of Coming Home
Apr 15, 2015 9:36 am ET
Nobody tells you about this part.
Expats are good at preparing for their next exciting post, whether it’s in Burundi or Boston. They’ll study the language, find the best place to live, read up on the food, the climate, and the currency.
But the deep, dark secret of the expat experience is that coming home – repatriation – can be even harder than leaving. “When you go abroad, you expect everything to be new and different,” says Tina Quick, author of “The Global Nomad’s Guide to University Transition.” And when you return home, you expect life to be basically the same. “But you have changed, and things back home have changed since you’ve been gone,” she says.
Robin Pascoe, author of “Homeward Bound: A Spouse’s Guide to Repatriation,” compares it to wearing contact lens in the wrong eyes. “Everything looks almost right,” she says.
Many expats coming home go through a period of grief, says Ms. Quick, until they “give in to the homesickness” for their host country.
Maria Foley says when she and her family repatriated to Canada from Singapore, she assumed it would be a smooth transition. “We moved back to the same house; we were driving the same car,” she says. “And it hit me like a punch in the gut. It took two years until I felt like a human being again.”
The struggle of repatriation is not just one of psychological adjustment. Multinational companies are finding that while they are using plenty of resources to prepare employees for an international transfer, they are less attentive to the other end of the move. The result, according to research by Brookfield Global Relocation Services, is that about 12 percent of employees leave the company within a few years of repatriation. While that percentage is similar to the overall attrition rate for companies, the number is a concern, “given the inordinate cost of international assignments,” says Diane Douiyssi of Brookfield.
Ms. Douiyssi thinks the companies “would want to work harder to retain these key employees.” The amount that companies invest in expat employees, both financially and developmentally, “make them valuable assets to the company,” which is why an attrition rate that’s similar to other employees is “somewhat surprising,” she says.
Sheldon Kenton, chief commercial officer for Cigna Global Health Benefits, likewise notes that a “fairly significant” number of expat employees leave companies shortly after repatriation. “That seems like a bit of a waste,” he says. “And I think it’s a financial cost. We always look at a three-year assignment of an expat as a million-dollar investment. If an employee leaves six months after returning, that’s a relatively poor return on investment.”
Many companies are starting to pay more attention to this, Mr. Kenton says. Although there hasn’t been much research on the post-repatriation situation of employees, he suspects that the high costs of moving employees has “forced companies to take a better look at this.” Part of the problem is that the human resources employees are often the last to hear about an expat employee being repatriated, he says. Cigna clients tell him that the goal is for both companies and employees to spend time figuring out the next step. “Don’t think about what you’re going to do the week after you’re repatriated.”
Ms. Pascoe says that her adjustment problems led her to write “Homeward Bound.” Ms. Foley began a blog called “I was an expat wife” as a form of “online therapy” to help, as she writes, “work through my ambivalence about repatriating, revisit my glory days, and share whatever snippets of hard-earned wisdom I picked up in my years abroad.” She’s also writing a book about the experience, based on a survey of more than 1,000 people who responded to her questions about repatriation.
Naomi Hattaway, an American who moved first to India and then to Singapore, wrote a post on her blog called “I am a triangle,” that went viral, receiving more than 400 comments. She ended up starting a Facebook group, also called “I Am a Triangle,” so that people going through similar experiences could connect. A “triangle,” she says in her original post, is a person who might be from a “circle country” but move to a “square society,” that is totally different. Eventually that person evolves into a triangle, with elements of both cultures. Moving home doesn’t change that, she says.
Lois Bushong, who grew up abroad as the child of missionaries and spent much of her own life abroad, became a therapist to help other expats deal with this transition. One of the founding members of the group, Families in Global Transition, Ms. Bushong says that the dearth of counseling help for expats coming home – particularly those who might have had to be evacuated from countries having crises – was one of her motivations.
“I thought, ‘Is somebody going to help them, talk to them?’” she asks. From her counseling, she also wrote a book, “Belonging Everywhere and Nowhere: Insights into Counseling the Globally Mobile.”
Other expats find that their alienation – sometimes called reverse culture shock – can take a more serious turn. Nneka Okona, a 28-year-old from Atlanta, says that after teaching English and writing in Spain for almost a year, she moved to the Washington, D.C., area to live with her father, who had moved to the city for a job. One of her friends, who had lived abroad for two years, warned her that moving back to America would be hard.
“I kind of shrugged it off,” she says. “The first month was amazing, all the food and soda and little things I missed so much.” But after a month, she says, it was like a light switch turned off. “For the first four weeks, I felt like I was visiting. Then I realized I really do live here. I was not going back anywhere. That was when things started to get really hard,” she says.
Ms. Okona stopped leaving the house and cut herself off from friends. Finally, her father asked her if she wanted to see a therapist. When she did, she was diagnosed with “situational depression,” or a depression caused in her case by her inability to adjust to the transition of her new life. Ms. Okona is also planning her next stint abroad, this time as a graduate student in England.
Ms. Bushong, the therapist, says it’s easy for returning expats to feel isolated. “Nobody gets it. It’s like having somebody dying and there’s no funeral and you’re not supposed to talk about it. You feel guilty talking about it.”
Perhaps the hardest transitions happen with expats who didn’t especially want to leave. George Eves, the Moscow-based, British-born founder of Expat Info Desk, an online resource for expats, says that many companies limit the amount of time employees can spend in a particular posting. “They may say you have to go home or go somewhere else. But you might say, I actually like living here,” he says.
Ms. Hattaway recommends that before they leave, expats undergo a ritual where they visit and say goodbye to each aspect of their life abroad. Ms. Foley says that some people may also want to revisit the place later on to see how things are changed. When she returned to Singapore for a visit, she realized she had become a tourist in the place that had been her home. “I had been aching for years, but being there as a tourist put that into place for me,” she says.
In other instances, a trailing spouse might refuse to set down roots because she knows her spouse’s career might take her away again. Ms. Bushong had one client who refused to unpack, buy furniture, or make friends for two years after the repatriation. “She kept waiting for him to come home and say, ‘We’re moving again,’” she says.
Children, who may appear to be excited to return home and reunite with old friends, sometimes hide their identities as Third Culture Kids. Ms. Foley, who had lived for years in France with her family, says that her children were fluent in French. But when one daughter took a French class back in Canada, she spoke French with a strong Anglo accent.
“Years later, I asked her about it,” says Ms. Foley. Her daughter answered, “There was nothing wrong with my accent. I faked it,” she recounts. “Otherwise she would stick out as being different.”
Ms. Hattaway says that a teacher in her daughter’s Virginia school confronted her at a parent-teacher conference because the girl, she says, didn’t know anything about U.S. history or currency. Apparently the daughter told the teacher the family had moved to Virginia from Florida, which was technically true. But what she neglected to mention was that the years before that were in Singapore and India. “She decided it was too much of a hassle,” Ms. Hattaway says.
Many repatriated expats find it hard to connect to friends again at home. Ms. Hattaway says that expat life draws people together: “You’re in a circle or tribe with other expats. But back home, you’re only one in a sea of people. Some of them have never left, some don’t have passports. And you look like everyone else,” she says.
Tina Quick, who lives outside of Boston, says that although she’s been back in the States for 10 years, she still doesn’t have a best friend, someone she could call in an emergency. She didn’t understand why she never heard from the other soccer parents she met after the season ended. Her husband reminded her that their children had all gone to elementary school together.
The Rev. Ken MacHarg, who served as a pastor in six countries around the world, says that he tells people that moving overseas will “mess you up for the rest of your life. You’re constantly torn between those places, and you’re a changed person.”
Expats need to know that the toughest assignment of all might be coming home. “Send me home?” asks Ms. Pascoe. “It’s easier to go to Bangkok than to repatriate in Vancouver.”
Today in US we are talking about REPATRIATION TAXES along with US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. Today's MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS that used to be US CORPORATIONS are now EAST INDIA COMPANY global 1%. If 99% US WE THE PEOPLE allow global corporate campuses and global factories to take our US city economies---it would be the same as EAST INDIA CORPORATION moving into our AMERICAN COLONIAL economies. Early America kept those global corporations AT BAY so we could build our American local economies. The policy of REPATRIATION----whether tied to taxation of global corporations OR bringing global corporations into our US cities ----
is the OPPOSITE OF OUR AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND TEA PARTY TAX PROTESTS.
The HAMILTON US FED with those ROBBER BARON US PRESIDENTS back in ROARING 20s------were setting the stage for CORPORATE RAIDING----sending our US domestic corporations overseas to enfold them into EAST INDIA COMPANY-LIKE MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS.
REPATRIATING THESE OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% CORPORATIONS TODAY? REALLY?
We remind that UK THE GUARDIAN is captured media-------of course this corporations was funded by the KINGS AND QUEENS and their banks. This article is too long to post please Goggle to remind our 99% US citizens what we were trying to escape in coming to America.
'It was not the British government that seized India, but a private company, run by an unstable sociopath'
The East India Company: The original corporate raiders
Wed 4 Mar 2015 00.59 EST Last modified on Wed 29 Nov 2017 17.26 EST
For a century, the East India Company conquered, subjugated and plundered vast tracts of south Asia. The lessons of its brutal reign have never been more relevant
Wed 4 Mar 2015 00.59 EST Last modified on Wed 29 Nov 2017 17.26 EST
One of the very first Indian words to enter the English language was the Hindustani slang for plunder: “loot”. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, this word was rarely heard outside the plains of north India until the late 18th century, when it suddenly became a common term across Britain. To understand how and why it took root and flourished in so distant a landscape, one need only visit Powis Castle.
The last hereditary Welsh prince, Owain Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, built Powis castle as a craggy fort in the 13th century; the estate was his reward for abandoning Wales to the rule of the English monarchy. But its most spectacular treasures date from a much later period of English conquest and appropriation: Powis is simply awash with loot from India, room after room of imperial plunder, extracted by the East India Company in the 18th century.
There are more Mughal artefacts stacked in this private house in the Welsh countryside than are on display at any one place in India – even the National Museum in Delhi. The riches include hookahs of burnished gold inlaid with empurpled ebony; superbly inscribed spinels and jewelled daggers; gleaming rubies the colour of pigeon’s blood and scatterings of lizard-green emeralds. There are talwars set with yellow topaz, ornaments of jade and ivory; silken hangings, statues of Hindu gods and coats of elephant armour.
Such is the dazzle of these treasures that, as a visitor last summer, I nearly missed the huge framed canvas that explains how they came to be here. The picture hangs in the shadows at the top of a dark, oak-panelled staircase. It is not a masterpiece, but it does repay close study. An effete Indian prince, wearing cloth of gold, sits high on his throne under a silken canopy. On his left stand scimitar and spear carrying officers from his own army; to his right, a group of powdered and periwigged Georgian gentlemen. The prince is eagerly thrusting a scroll into the hands of a statesmanlike, slightly overweight Englishman in a red frock coat.
The painting shows a scene from August 1765, when the young Mughal emperor Shah Alam, exiled from Delhi and defeated by East India Company troops, was forced into what we would now call an act of involuntary privatisation. The scroll is an order to dismiss his own Mughal revenue officials in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, and replace them with a set of English traders appointed by Robert Clive – the new governor of Bengal – and the directors of the EIC, who the document describes as “the high and mighty, the noblest of exalted nobles, the chief of illustrious warriors, our faithful servants and sincere well-wishers, worthy of our royal favours, the English Company”. The collecting of Mughal taxes was henceforth subcontracted to a powerful multinational corporation – whose revenue-collecting operations were protected by its own private army.
It was at this moment that the East India Company (EIC) ceased to be a conventional corporation, trading and silks and spices, and became something much more unusual. Within a few years, 250 company clerks backed by the military force of 20,000 locally recruited Indian soldiers had become the effective rulers of Bengal. An international corporation was transforming itself into an aggressive colonial power.
Using its rapidly growing security force – its army had grown to 260,000 men by 1803 – it swiftly subdued and seized an entire subcontinent. Astonishingly, this took less than half a century. The first serious territorial conquests began in Bengal in 1756; 47 years later, the company’s reach extended as far north as the Mughal capital of Delhi, and almost all of India south of that city was by then effectively ruled from a boardroom in the City of London. “What honour is left to us?” asked a Mughal official named Narayan Singh, shortly after 1765, “when we have to take orders from a handful of traders who have not yet learned to wash their bottoms?”
It was not the British government that seized India, but a private company, run by an unstable sociopath
Hmmmm, this sounds familiar to MOVING FORWARD today. It seems the 99% of US citizens expecting corporate repatriation taxes will end being tax revenue- soaked themselves if we do not stop global corporate campus and global factories claiming our US cities.
'The collecting of Mughal taxes was henceforth subcontracted to a powerful multinational corporation – whose revenue-collecting operations were protected by its own private army'.
We shared the results of BUSH-ERA REPATRIATION TAX policy looking much like TRUMP'S. In both they tout all kinds of good things from jobs to housing to schools which never appear. Below is the CLINTON global banking 1% neo-liberal think tank CENTER FOR BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES giving 99% WE THE PEOPLE the same propaganda. It is critical to understand the layers of policy made to look beneficial with the worst of policies hidden.
We notice that NONE OF THESE are tied to not wanting these global corporations tied to power of infrastructure building in our US cities. It is all tied to being GOOD CORPORATE SOCIAL BENEFIT.
Let's be clear----both far-right Bush neo-cons and far-right Clinton neo-liberals are MOVING FORWARD the same infrastructure building and will use what is being called a REPATRIATION CORPORATE TAX for the same outcomes----building global corporate campuses and global factories---but know what? It is all tied to US TREASURY BOND DEBT ----$20 TRILLION DOLLARS all of which is our 99% public trusts, Federal, state, and local tax revenue.
Global banking 1% pols and 5% players say CORPORATE REPATRIATION TAX----we say US TREASURY AND STATE MUNICIPAL BOND DEBT is staged to pay for all these infrastructure building in US cities.
Three Types of “Repatriation Tax” on Overseas Profits: Understanding the Differences
October 7, 2016
Two proposals to address multinational corporations’ large stockpile of offshore profits — a transition tax on those profits and a repatriation tax holiday — may appear similar at first blush but are opposites in many ways. A transition tax is a sound policy that would raise revenues for infrastructure investments or other uses; a repatriation holiday is a tax cut that loses revenue and consequently cannot pay for anything. A third proposal, a “deemed repatriation,” could resemble a transition tax or a repatriation tax holiday, depending on the tax rate. All three types of proposals are sometimes referred to as “repatriation taxes,” but it is important to distinguish among them because of their very different effects on revenue and multinationals’ incentives to shift profits offshore. (See Figure 1.)
U.S.-based multinationals do not pay U.S. corporate tax on their foreign profits until the profits are “repatriated” to the United States. As a result, many firms use accounting maneuvers to report as much of their profits offshore as possible to avoid U.S. taxes. Multinationals have roughly $2.6 trillion in profits booked offshore, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates. Both a transition tax and a repatriation tax holiday try to deal with these offshore profits — but in very different ways.
Heightening the confusion, several proposals have claimed to link each of these approaches to boosting investment in U.S. infrastructure. But while a transition tax can pay for such added investment, a repatriation holiday cannot. As Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has stated, “Tax holiday proposals designed to pay for [replenishing the Highway Trust Fund] sound great until you look at the details. Saying you’re going to use something that loses money to pay for anything is just wrong. Therefore, saying you’re going to use it to pay for infrastructure is just bad policy, plain and simple.”
Similarly, White House National Economic Council Director Jeff Zients has said the Administration is “not supportive of a voluntary repatriation holiday. . . . It costs a lot of money” and has emphasized that the Administration’s proposal for a transition tax “is very different than a repatriation holiday, which we believe is bad policy.”
Part of corporate tax reform, which can be designed to permanently reduce or eliminate incentives to shift profits offshore.Stand-alone proposal that reduces or increases incentives for corporations to shift profits offshore, depending on the rate.Stand-alone proposal that increases incentives for corporations to shift profits offshore.
Example: President Obama has proposed a 14 percent transition tax, with revenue going to infrastructure investment. No congressional proposals to date.Example: Senators Paul and Boxer proposed in 2015 a five-year repatriation holiday with stated goal of replenishing Highway Trust Fund.
Any corporate tax reform that alters the tax treatment of future overseas profits will likely include a one-time transition tax on existing foreign profits as part of the shift to the new tax system. A transition tax or “toll charge” would clean the slate of existing tax liabilities.
Such a tax would be mandatory:
multinationals would have to pay U.S. taxes on existing foreign profits whether they repatriate them or not. To achieve this, transition taxes would deem all foreign profits to have been repatriated and thus subject to the transition tax rate. (Most proposals would allow the companies to pay the tax over a period of years.) Future overseas profits would then be taxed under the new rules agreed to as part of tax reform.
A transition tax would raise one-time revenues that could help fund infrastructure investments or reduce deficits. For example, the President’s budget proposes a compulsory 14 percent transition tax on existing offshore profits, which would raise $299 billion to fund infrastructure investments, as part of transitioning to a new international tax system.
Former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp also included a transition tax in his 2014 tax reform proposal, at a maximum rate of 8.75 percent on most foreign profits. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also proposed in 2015 a framework for international tax reform and endorsed the broad transition tax approach in President Obama and Chairman Camp’s frameworks.
Since transition tax revenues would be one-time in nature, they could not help pay for permanent corporate rate cuts on an ongoing basis (or provide permanent infrastructure funding either). For example, as noted above the President’s 14 percent transition tax proposal raises $299 billion.
As the President’s Framework for Business Tax Reform notes, if those revenues were coupled with corporate rate cuts:
[…A] package that appears revenue-neutral in the first ten years would lose roughly $380 billion in the second decade, and even more thereafter. For this reason, the one-time revenues raised by business tax reform should be matched with one-time investments or deficit reduction, as the President’s Framework proposed.
Repatriation Tax Holiday
A repatriation tax holiday is designed to encourage multinationals to return overseas profits to the United States by offering them a temporary, sharply reduced U.S. tax rate on those profits. It gives participating multinationals very large tax breaks (especially those that have aggressively shifted profits offshore) and increases deficits over the long term, as explained below. Because it loses revenues, it cannot be used to fund infrastructure investments or anything else.
The repatriation tax holiday enacted in 2004 failed to produce any of the promised economic benefits, such as boosting jobs or domestic investment, according to a wide range of independent studies by economists associated with the National Bureau for Economic Research, the Congressional Research Service, the Treasury Department, and other analysts.
Enacting a second repatriation tax holiday would boost revenues during the holiday period as companies rushed to take advantage of the temporary low rate, but would bleed revenues thereafter. A two-year holiday at a tax rate of 5.74 percent would lose $96 billion over 11 years, JCT estimated in 2014 (see Figure 2). As JCT explained, the biggest reason for the revenue loss over time is that a second holiday would encourage companies to shift more profits and investments overseas in anticipation of more tax holidays, thus avoiding taxes in the meantime.
Because a repatriation tax holiday loses revenue, claims that it can pay for infrastructure are mistaken. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) proposed in 2015 a repatriation tax holiday at a 6.5 percent rate that they claimed could help finance infrastructure investment. But JCT estimates that their proposal would lose $118 billion over ten years, so it couldn’t finance infrastructure spending.
Key Differences Between a Transition Tax and a Repatriation Holiday
1. A transition tax is compulsory and raises revenues; a repatriation tax holiday is optional and loses revenues.
As noted, the President’s proposed transition tax would raise $299 billion over 2016-2025. Because the revenues stop flowing in after the transition period, it makes sense to use them for one-time infrastructure investments, as the President proposes. A repatriation holiday, in contrast, reduces revenues over time.
2. A transition tax is part of corporate tax reform that can be designed to reduce or eliminate incentives to shift profits and investments offshore; a repatriation tax holiday increases those incentives.
A transition tax would be coupled with corporate tax reforms that could be designed to reduce or eliminate the incentive for companies to shift profits offshore. The President, for example, has proposed a 19 percent minimum tax on future offshore profits, so multinationals could no longer defer tax on their foreign profits until choosing to repatriate them. By contrast, a repatriation tax holiday is a stand-alone tax cut that lacks such reforms; it would strongly encourage firms to shift profits and investment offshore in subsequent years in anticipation of another tax holiday.
3. A transition tax could bring other benefits as part of corporate tax reform.
Unlike a repatriation tax holiday, which has been shown to provide none of the promised economic benefits, a transition tax could yield economic benefits if used for one-time investments, such as infrastructure, or to reduce the deficit.
The most fiscally responsible approach would be for corporate tax reform to reduce deficits. But even a reform package that is revenue neutral should meet the revenue-neutrality standard over the long run as well as in the initial ten-year budget window. Otherwise, policymakers could use timing gimmicks to craft a corporate tax reform package that is revenue neutral over the first ten years but swells deficits and debt after that.
Stand-alone Deemed Repatriation
A “stand-alone deemed repatriation” is in many ways a hybrid between a repatriation holiday and a transition tax. Like a transition tax, it would be compulsory and deem overseas profits to have been repatriated and subject to U.S. tax. Unlike a transition tax, it would be a stand-alone measure not coupled with a permanent reform to the international tax system. How a stand-alone deemed repatriation would impact revenues and tax avoidance would depend on the rate.
- If the deemed repatriation rate is set low, it would work more like a repatriation tax holiday. Imagine if a deemed repatriation rate were set at the 5.25 percent rate offered under the 2004 repatriation tax holiday. Even though companies would be required to treat all their offshore profits as having been repatriated and subject to the tax, because the rate is so low, they would likely choose to repatriate most of their profits even if the tax were instead structured as a voluntary “holiday.”
- Like a repatriation tax holiday, a deemed repatriation would generate one-time revenues. But revenues would be lost on some of the profits repatriated at the low 5.25 percent rate that would have otherwise been repatriated over time at the normal 35 percent statutory rate. A deemed repatriation at a low rate would also encourage multinationals to expect that future deemed repatriations or tax holidays will be set at a similarly low rate. Thus, also like a repatriation tax holiday, a deemed repatriation at a low rate would encourage multinationals to shift more profits offshore in the future (because it would make them more confident that any eventual U.S. tax on those profits would be far lower than 35 percent). This would further bleed future revenues.
- If the deemed repatriation rate is set high (close to the 35 percent statutory rate), it would work more like a transition tax. For example, consider a deemed repatriation rate at or very near to the 35 percent statutory rate. The higher rate would generate more initial revenues from the deemed repatriation. In addition, to the extent that some of the profits deemed to have been repatriated would have been repatriated voluntarily over time at the usual 35 percent rate, the loss of revenue on those future repatriations would be smaller. Finally, the higher rate might alter multinationals’ expectations about the rate that they will eventually face on any future offshore profits — it could reduce their expectations that policymakers will offer them future tax holidays or deemed repatriations at much lower tax rates. That might therefore even reduce their incentive to shift profits offshore, and bolster future revenues.
- If the deemed repatriation rate is set between these two extremes, it is difficult to predict precisely how multinationals would respond. Any “deemed repatriation” rate should be set as close to the 35 percent statutory rate as possible — at least high enough to avoid giving multinationals even more reason to shift future profits overseas. Otherwise, it would effectively act like a repatriation tax holiday, and would worsen tax avoidance and lose revenues in later years. As with a transition tax, any one-time revenues from a “stand-alone” deemed repatriation should be dedicated to one-off investments or deficit reduction, and not paired with proposals that have lasting costs.
We are not aware of any congressional proposals for a deemed repatriation, though commentators and policymakers have discussed the option.
We will spend the next few days discussing what that last article posted means in policy regarding CORPORATE TAX REPATRIATION----but please know that all these tax policies whether written from far-right wing Bush neo-cons or far-right wing Clinton neo-liberals hide REAL goals of TAXATION OF FOREIGN EARNINGS originally written a century ago. They are totally rewriting all of what last century's goals of corporate taxation and monopoly laws are supposed to be.
A transition tax would raise one-time revenues that could help fund infrastructure investments or reduce deficits'.
'Repatriation Tax Holiday
A repatriation tax holiday is designed to encourage multinationals to return overseas profits to the United States by offering them a temporary, sharply reduced U.S. tax rate on those profits'.
The first thing we see in these terms is ----none of them are tied to strictly clawing back overseas corporate tax earnings as written by TAXATION ON FOREIGN EARNINGS. These overseas corporate taxes were never about TRANSITIONING GLOBAL CORPORATIONS back to US cities-------they were never about REPATRIATING those taxes at discount rates. Where the Center for Budget and Policies Clinton neo-liberal think tank does indeed describe what global banking 1% are telling 99% WE THE PEOPLE what they want-----it completely ignores US CORPORATE TAXATION law as existed for 100 years.
What the corporate tax on foreign income did these 100 years is allow global corporations to deduct from total 35% tax rate tied to corporate tax the amount of taxes those global corporations had to pay to overseas nations to which they moved. So, we do not get the total 35% income tax on all profits overseas.
KNOW WHAT FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES OVERSEAS HAVE HAD AS CORPORATE TAX LAW THESE SEVERAL DECADES? TAX FREE ZONES FOR CORPORATIONS INSIDE THESE ZONES.
So, did these US global corporations pay any taxes to overseas nations on income? WE THINK NOT. As in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----we see tons of TAX SUBSIDY.
Aug. 15 – Foreign investors wishing to take advantage of development zones for export-related manufacturing and assembly, and obtaining tax incentives when doing so, may consider establishing a presence in one of India’s special economic zones (SEZs).
How the United States Taxes Foreign-Source Income
The federal government taxes US resident multinational firms on their worldwide income at the same rates applied to domestic firms; the current maximum tax rate—the rate that applies to most corporate income—is 35 percent. US multinationals may claim a credit for taxes paid to foreign governments on income earned abroad, but only up to their US tax liability on that income. Firms may, however, take advantage of cross-crediting, using excess credits from income earned in high-tax countries to offset US tax due on income earned in low-tax countries.
US multinationals generally pay tax on the income of their foreign subsidiaries only when they repatriate the income, a delay of taxation termed “deferral.” Deferral, the credit limitation, and cross-crediting all provide strong incentives for firms to shift income from the United States and other high-tax countries to low-tax countries.
Suppose, for example, a US-based multinational firm facing the 35 percent maximum corporate income tax rate earns $800 in profits in its Irish subsidiary (figure 1). The 12.5 percent Irish corporate tax reduces the after-tax profit to $700. Suppose the firm then repatriates $70 of this profit and reinvests the remaining $630 in its Irish operations. The firm must then pay US tax on a base of $80 (the $70 plus the $10 in Irish tax paid on that portion of its profits), or $28, but it claims a credit for the $10 Irish tax, leaving a net US tax of $18. If the firm has excess foreign tax credits from operations in high-tax countries, it can offset more (or possibly all) of the US tax due on its repatriated Irish profit. Meanwhile, deferral allows the remaining profit ($630) to grow abroad, free of US income tax until it is repatriated.
Let's be clear-----first, we do not believe in the least that all those US corporations moving overseas these few decades regardless of Bush era repatriation accumulated only a few trillion dollars in CORPORATE TAX ON FOREIGN INCOME. The soaring product manufacturing around global technology corporations and infrastructure being built for ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID brought tens of trillions of dollars in profits to those global corporations.
'The overseas cash stash for U.S. companies continues to swell, with only scant hope of it being brought back home as Washington continues to debate repatriation'.
99% WE THE PEOPLE will be better to forget repatriation of these few trillion they say are owed just to keep these multi-national corporations out of our US cities. We do want to acknowledge as REAL DATA that $2 trillion in owed foreign earnings is BOGUS.
Just this ONE US corporation going global brings in US earnings of several billion each year-----the expansion overseas was HUGE------when US citizens allow these US corporations go overseas thinking we will have ANY OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY whether in actual EARNINGS DATA or STOCK DATA -----we need to WAKE UP. Nothing reported as costs and earnings is REAL DATA from overseas. So, we have never been able to track real foreign earnings for corporate taxation before empire-building exploded----we certainly have no control over that data today.
THE $2 TRILLION IN CORPORATE EARNINGS HELD OFFSHORE FOR REPATRIATION HAS NO BASIS IN FACTUAL EARNING DATA.
US citizens cannot even get REAL DATA from our own US local, state, and Federal government because of systemic frauds and corruption so do people really think these data from overseas foreign earning would EVER BE FACTUAL?
We do not want this system of foreign earning taxation PERIOD.
Feb 8, 2008 @ 05:30 PM 1,321
McDonald's Golden In International Markets
By Lisa LaMotta FORBES
Where's the beef? From McDonald's point of view, it's outside of the U.S. On Friday the Oak Brook, Ill.-based fast-food purveyor joined the growing chorus of multinationals benefiting from geographic diversity.
The company's shares closed up 2.2%, or $1.18, to $55.64 on Friday after the company announced strong international sales in January.
McDonald's said sales were up 5.7% globally in restaurants that had been open at least 13 months. That broke down to a 1.9% increase in same-store sales in the U.S. in January from a flat December, compared with sales in Europe that were up 8.2%. The Golden Arches also saw increased traffic in its Asia/Pacific, Middle East and Africa stores, with sales up 7.8%.
"It's not that there is something wrong with the U.S. numbers, it's just a product of the environment," said Bear Stearns analyst Joseph Buckley. "The key will be if the European economy slows and if that will impact their sales. There has been no evidence of that so far, but that becomes a bigger risk going forward."
The international numbers trump comparable sales growth for the corresponding period in 2007 when European sales were only up by 5.8% and Asia/Pacific, Middle East and Africa units were up 4.3%.
"The U.K., Europe’s second-largest market, and formerly a drag to the region, has officially 'turned around' according to McDonald's," said JPMorgan Chase analyst Joseph Ivankoe. "By the end of fiscal-year 2008 we expect 30% of [the] U.K. system and the entire German system to have been re-imaged, providing a lift to [comparable sales] at re-imaged stores and a positive halo effect for the entire market."
McDonald's is in line with the current trend of foreign markets boosting sales for multinational U.S. companies that are suffering domestically, with overseas sales benefiting from strong currencies and better economic growth than seen in the domestic market..
Shares of Tiffany & Co. , for example, rose on Friday to $40.20, up 5.1%, or $1.93, in midday trading after it offered solid 2008 guidance on the back of strong international sales. The company is scheduled to report earnings for its fourth quarter and annual 2007 results on March 24. (See "Tiffany's Sparkling International Rise")
Whirlpool also experienced a boom overseas. The appliance manufacturer announced earlier this week that fourth-quarter profit soared 71.6%, to $187 million, or $2.38 per share. Whirlpool North America sales slipped less than 1%, to $3.0 billion, while European sales jumped 12% to $1.1 billion. (See: "Whirlpool's International Fever" )
In late January, American manufacturers Honeywell International and Caterpillar both announced double-digit earnings in the fourth quarter due to strong international results, up 12.1% and 10.0% respectively.
We discuss the fact that US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will be FOREIGN GLOBAL CORPORATIONS coming to US-----with that comes the TRUMP MADE IN AMERICA becoming MADE IN CHINA NOW MADE IN AMERICA.
The policy of taxing US corporations operating overseas with CORPORATE TAX IN FOREIGN EARNINGS 100 years ago came with those few US corporations expanding overseas still having a large presence in US economy. So, STANDARD OIL et al may have gone overseas to earn money but they still had plenty of corporate activity in US....from gas stations, oil and gas refineries, drilling and transportation all across the US. So, the bulk of their corporate income was inside the US -----today, it is the opposite and MOVING FORWARD it will be totally absent as the last of US corporations are pushed into bankruptcy from this massive corporate and US Treasury bond fraud.
What we have coming to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are foreign global corporations which would not pay taxes inside those US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. MADE IN CHINA IN AMERICA must export global factory or services and US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are a duty-free zone.
If we look at TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT AND UNITED NATIONS for which CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA NOW TRUMP work------we discussed the tax term VAT ------and China is VAT HAPPY.
VAT WILL BE THE ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE TAX POLICY AND IT IS WRITTEN SO THAT GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AS SOURCE OF PRODUCTS PAY NO TAXES.
This REPATRIATION TAX ISSUE IS PROPAGANDA.
'Later this year along the banks of the James River outside Richmond, Virginia, a paper products maker based in northeastern China will begin construction on a new U.S. manufacturing plant. The factory will churn the region's straw and corn stalks into household products including napkins, tissue and organic fertilizer—all marked "Made in the USA."'
The only corporate presence in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES of corporations that used to be American ---will be the global headquarter's campus as in Baltimore's UNDERARMOUR------it is a business resort for global 1% and their 2% traveling ----it will not have any American business presence. NO US CORPORATIONS TO TAX IN MOVING FORWARD.
Below we see TRUMP'S MADE IN AMERICA MOVING FORWARD.
Feb 8 2015, 6:24 am ET
‘Made in China’ Is Increasingly Becoming ‘Made in USA’
Chinese foreign direct investment in the U.S. totaled $12 billion last year, topping $10 billion for the second year in a row. JEWEL SAMAD / AFP/Getty Images
Later this year along the banks of the James River outside Richmond, Virginia, a paper products maker based in northeastern China will begin construction on a new U.S. manufacturing plant. The factory will churn the region's straw and corn stalks into household products including napkins, tissue and organic fertilizer—all marked "Made in the USA."
Shandong Tranlin Paper's new U.S. factory is forecast to generate about 2,000 new jobs by 2020, and is the latest Chinese company to invest in American manufacturing.
Chinese foreign direct investment in the U.S. totaled $12 billion last year, topping $10 billion for the second year in a row, according to the Rhodium Group, which tracks Chinese money flows into the U.S. It was three years ago in 2012, when—for the first time ever—Chinese foreign investment in America lapped investment flows in the other direction to China.
Asian investment in America is nothing new. Japanese companies led the way in the 1980s, partly to evade tariffs. Avoiding international taxes on goods again is partly why Chinese businesses are coming to America. But Chinese investment in the U.S. is striking and different in other ways—and already altering pockets of domestic manufacturing.
Chinese investment in America largely has been tied to mergers and acquisitions. Chinese meat producer Shuanghui Group bought Smithfield Foods for roughly $4.72 billion. But some Chinese companies are taking another tack and building manufacturing plants—from the ground up—on U.S. soil. They're spending hundreds of millions on new projects and expansions of existing U.S. subsidiaries combined have jumped to five to nine annually, from virtually none a few years ago, according to Rhodium's research.
China moving up the food chain
Beyond tariff jumping, the larger question remains why?
Known more for low-cost manufacturing and massive shipping containers of cheap toys and textiles, China wants to move up the food chain. China's gross domestic product for 2014 grew 7.4 percent—the weakest performance in 24 years. As the nation's economy slows, China wants to push into higher-valued products including pricey construction machinery. But production and sales of higher-margin goods require advanced tech skills and innovation, sometimes more easily achieved outside China, where low-cost production reigns.
And in an ironic twist on offshored American jobs, some Chinese companies are pursuing "Made in USA" branding. "Foreign brands and quality control are increasingly important for China's affluent middle class," according to Rhodium's research.
"Foreign brands and quality control are increasingly important for China's affluent middle class."
But for all the manufacturing bounty generated by foreign investments, some China watchers are cautious. The new manufacturing plants have stoked old fears about foreign investment. Are Chinese businesses planting stakes in the U.S. to simply hoard know-how, and eventually wipe out domestic competition?
"Some foreign direct investment is being done in a strategic way by the Chinese government to pick up high value-added parts," said Stephen Ezell, senior analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington.
"In the background, this has become of increasing concern," Ezell said.
China's middle class to surpass US population: CEO 0:49Roy Dahlquist, an economic development leader in Virginia, has traveled to China and back for 30 years and counting.
He's had China on his brain long before Americans began buying shares of e-commerce platform Alibaba, or started downloading the microblogging app WeChat on their smartphones.
For some 16 years, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership has operated an office in China, and eventually relocated to Shanghai in 2011. Meanwhile, a now senior executive at the Tranlin paper company—based in the Shandong province of China—earned an MBA from the University of Virginia Darden School of Business in 2003.
The future executive took note of the region's easy access to Interstate 95, Washington Dulles International Airport and the Chesapeake Bay. The Virginia port's shipping channels are deep, and can accommodate some of the world's largest container ships. These are all desired qualities for foreign-based businesses looking to open shop in America.
Years later, Tranlin executives wanted to expand with a new U.S. paper and fertilizer plant. They initially focused on California, when the Virginia team pitched Chesterfield County's infrastructure, and local talent pool that spans agriculture and the military. Naval Station Norfolk is the largest naval complex in the world. But the number of federal government-funded jobs has diminished over the years.
It was in June of last year that Shandong Tranlin announced it would invest about $2 billion over five years to build an 850-acre campus outside Richmond in Chesterfield County. About 23 Chinese-owned businesses already operate in Virginia, representing $9.51 billion in capital investment, including mergers and acquisitions, and more than 4,300 jobs.
"Virginia was in a position, where we historically depended on the federal government, military, defense for a lot jobs," said Dahlquist, managing director of the Asia region for the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. "In our new economy, we can't do that."
China's economic transformation: Cramer 2:26
Boosting Chinese foreign investment
The Tranlin project in Virginia and other planned, new manufacturing facilities will boost Chinese foreign direct investment in the U.S. into the new year. "The outlook for 2015 remains very strong, with more than $3 billion in deals currently pending," according to an update from Rhodium published in January. And with U.S. crude oil prices hovering under $50 a barrel—half the cost a year ago—private buyers could drive China-U.S. energy deals in coming months, according to Rhodium.
Other Chinese companies behind new U.S. manufacturing plants include:
- The Keer Group's $218 million cotton yarn factory in South Carolina.
- SANY's $60 million investment in office and manufacturing space for construction machinery in Georgia.
- Lenovo's computer production plant in North Carolina for an undisclosed investment amount. Many of the new manufacturing projects have a strong green component.
The Tranlin paper project, for example, will take advantage of the region's small grain producers. Straw and corn stalks—agricultural residuals that would have been tossed—and other fibrous materials will be transformed into household paper products.
Beyond the promise of advanced manufacturing, more Chinese companies are coming to America as they face higher costs in China for land and labor, along with tariffs and other trade barriers. Chinese firms in metals manufacturing, for example, localized production in the States after the U.S. imposed anti-dumping and other duties on various metal products, according to Rhodium. Related manufacturing projects include:
- Tianjin Pipe's $1 billion investment in a steel pipe plant in Texas.
- Nanshan Group unit's $100 million aluminum plant in Indiana.
- Golden Dragon's $100 million precision copper tubing plant in Alabama.
But while the list of new Chinese-funded U.S. plants is growing, it's hardly a manufacturing boom. Chinese manufacturing foreign direct investment in the U.S. is small, and Chinese companies account for a tiny fraction of American jobs—less than 100,000 across all sectors of the U.S. economy, according to Thilo Hanemann, research director with the Rhodium Group. Some research, in fact, suggests a decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, and America's bilateral trade with China increased. Although China has become America's third-largest export, Chinese goods still far outpace U.S. goods to China.
In the manufacturing sector, the bulk of U.S. sales to China involves commodities, while the vast majority of Chinese sales to the U.S. is manufactured, finished goods. "The net result is a trade relationship that clearly produces jobs for Chinese workers but costs jobs for blue collar Americans even as U.S. exports to China grow," according to a 2014 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report to Congress.
But other China watchers say talk of a Chinese investment threat is exaggerated, and that America benefits from Chinese investment. Ask Dahlquist of Virginia.
"We need manufacturing jobs," Dahlquist said. "We need a fresh approach that's less dependent on the federal government."
When China steadily installs VAT as its tax system it is MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE TAX---THE VAT. China places this VAT on all exports manufactured and in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES that is what Chinese global corporate campuses will be doing----manufacturing products and services to EXPORT. So, while Trump PRETENDS he is against Trans Pacific Trade Pact-----while he PRETENDS his MADE IN AMERICA is about bringing jobs to AMERICAN WORKERS----while he is PRETENDING to be reforming US corporate tax code ------he is MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE VAT TAX as US cities fill with foreign global corporations already having VAT.
Where China is tops in coming to US we will see US CITIES flood with foreign corporations from around the world with not a US corporation in site.
THIS REPATRIATION CORPORATE TAX POLICY IS PROPAGANDA. WHAT GLOBAL BANKING 1% POLS ARE DOING IS USING OUR $20 TRILLION US AND STATE MUNICIPAL BOND FRAUD REVENUE TO BUILD THESE INFRASTRUCTURES.
'China, along with about 160 other countries including Euro Zone members, has a VAT. The United States does not'.
Now, we discussed early 1900 corporate tax and monopoly policy and this discussion also includes TARIFF policy which brought shouts from US citizens of being bad for our US businesses so too is MOVING FORWARD TARIFF POLICY
Trump miscasts impact on trade of Chinese taxes
By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 4:39 p.m.
Trade analysts worry that Donald Trump's trade plans would cost American jobs.Donald Trump loves to tell voters he’s all about getting a better deal for America. It’s a theme he invokes repeatedly when it comes to trade.
In a recent interview with two New York Times reporters, Trump called for a different mind set.
"I do know my subject, and I do know that our country cannot continue to do what it’s doing," Trump said. "It’s very hard for us to do business in China, it’s very easy for China to do business with us. Plus with us, there’s a tremendous tax that we pay when we go into China, whereas when China sells to us, there’s no tax. I mean, it’s a whole double standard."
We wondered, is there a hefty tax when American firms sell in China, while there’s no tax that Chinese firms face when they sell here?
We asked the Trump campaign for background information on this and didn’t hear back.
The trade experts we reached told us there two possible ways to interpret what Trump means by a "tax that we pay when we go into China." He might have meant China’s value-added tax, or VAT, or he might have meant China’s import tariffs. We’ll explore both.
Value Added Tax
This tax is collected at each stage in the production or distribution of a product or service, but with a refund mechanism for VAT paid on purchased units so the final burden falls on the final buyer or consumer. So for example, when a clothing wholesaler sells some shirts to a retailer, the tax is booked on the wholesaler’s mark-up. When the retailer sells the shirt to a customer, the tax is booked again. But the retailer gets a credit back for the tax paid by the wholesaler.
China, along with about 160 other countries including Euro Zone members, has a VAT. The United States does not.
China’s basic VAT is 17 percent, but some items, such as agricultural products, are not taxed at all, and some products face a lower rate of 13 percent.
So in terms of a VAT, Trump has a point. But it isn’t one that has to do with a tax that uniquely raises the price of American goods and services sold in China. By and large, the VAT applies to all sales, regardless of where the product was made. It raises the costs for everybody.
"VAT or not doesn’t make much difference," said John Graham, a professor of international business at the UC Irvine Paul Merage School of Business.
An analysis of challenges in U.S.-China trade relations by the Congressional Research Service, the policy think tank of Congress, makes no mention of China’s value-added tax.
The Office of U.S. Trade Representative’s 2015 report on China does mention China’s VAT, but only in the way the government used VAT rebates to reduce costs for Chinese exporters.
"These practices have caused tremendous disruption, uncertainty, and unfairness in the global markets for some products," the report says, especially for products where China is a leading world producer, such as steel, aluminum and soda ash.
While that allows Chinese manufacturers to sell more cheaply overseas, it doesn’t make it more expensive for any foreign company to compete for sales in China.
For the record, it is worth putting China’s VAT into context. With one exception, countries in the European Union charge a higher rate. Luxembourg’s is the same as China’s, but Germany’s is 19 percent, France’s is 20 percent and Italy’s is 22 percent.
Tariffs are essentially a tax on imports. On this front, China imposes higher rates than does the United States.
Here’s how it breaks down, according to the World Trade Organization:
US tariffs on Chinese goods sold in the United States
Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods sold in China
There are different ways to summarize tariffs. The table above is adjusted for the volume of trade of different goods in each broad category, but regardless of how you cut it, China has higher tariffs than the United States.
However, Trump said Chinese goods faced no tax in the United States. That’s inaccurate. For agricultural goods, the tax is 2.5 percent. For non-agricultural goods, it is 2.9 percent.
"If Trump was referring to tariffs, which are a kind of tax, then it is clearly incorrect that Chinese products come into the U.S. tariff-free," said Joel Trachtman, a trade law specialist at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
It’s also worth noting that as a member of the World Trade Organization, China treats all importers the same, except if it has a separate free-trade deal. So, all things being equal, every WTO trading partner pays the same import tariff as the United States. China does have a number of free-trade treaties with many Asian countries, plus ones with Australia, Chile and others.
Julia Ya Qin, professor of law at Wayne State University, told us that it’s not unusual for the United States to have lower rates than China.
"Industrialized countries generally have lower tariffs than developing countries," Qin said. "Hence, countries such as India, Turkey, Argentina have much higher average tariffs than the United States, the EU, Canada, Japan on industrial products. China is somewhere in between the two groups."
Overall, while the United States and others have had trade disputes with China, they don’t hinge on tariffs or taxes.
"Generally, they are not major problems even in most cases worldwide," said Stuart Malawer, professor of law and international trade at George Mason University. Malawer served on the Virginia governor’s trade mission to China. "The real problem are non-tariff barriers. China has a significant number of them. These are primarily regulatory."
A leading example on the regulatory side has to do with beef. In 2014, China used food safety rules to block beef imports.
Malawer reviewed the history of trade disputes between the United States and China and told us that tariffs and taxes "are not an issue between the U.S. and China."
Trump said "there’s a tremendous tax that we pay when we go into China, whereas when China sells to us, there’s no tax." If Trump was thinking of China’s value-added tax, he has something of a point. China has a basic VAT of 17 percent, while the United States has none. However, the VAT applies to most goods sold in China, regardless of where they are made. And the VAT affects domestic producers the same as foreign ones.
If Trump was thinking of import tariffs, he has a different problem. Yes, China’s tariffs are higher than those imposed by the United States, but the Chinese exporters do face a tax when they sell in this country. So in terms of tariffs, Trump is wrong.
No expert or report we found from impartial sources suggested that taxes of any sort presented a challenge to American firms that sell in China. There are problems, but they stem from other things China does.
Whatever tax or tariff Trump had in mind, he either exaggerated the impact on trade or got the U.S. rate wrong. We rate this claim Mostly False.
We KNOW TRUMP is MOVING FORWARD Trans Pacific Trade Pact even as he PRETENDS not.....we KNOW his MADE IN AMERICA is MADE IN CHINA IN AMERICA....and we KNOW Trump will install VAT as a ONE WORLD ONE VAT TAX. So, REPATRIATION TAX policy is propaganda pretending our US corporations are still American when they are NOT.
While our regional and small businesses think all these tariffs are good or bad----they are not seeing the goals of MOVING FORWARD being-----there will be no US businesses manufacturing products to worry over TARIFF POLICIES.
So, the US losses both corporate taxation -----taxes on rich------AND tariffs that brought Federal tax revenue from foreign disappearing will meet VAT which is hyper-regressive and repressive on 99% US WE THE PEOPLE and 99% global citizens.
We love our 99% of global labor pool workers -------black, brown and white citizens----we are not fighting the presence of Asian 99% as immigrants wanting to start businesses----we are fighting this foreign corporation inside our US sovereign cities. Our 99% of global citizens coming to US need to know these CORPORATE TAX POLICIES being installed in Foreign Economic Zones overseas are the OPPOSITE of our US strong corporate taxation and monopoly laws from FDR through last century.
An Overview of China’s VAT Reform
Posted on December 30, 2016 by China Briefing
By Dezan Shira & Associates
Editor: Alexander Chipman Koty
Hailed as China’s most significant tax reform in over two decades, the value-added tax (VAT) was comprehensively implemented as the country’s only indirect tax in 2016, effectively replacing the business tax (BT) that previously applied to a number of industries. The reform is part of Beijing’s efforts to restructure the Chinese economy from one driven by labor-intensive manufacturing to one that is service-oriented by easing the tax burden on service industries, which have historically paid a disproportionate share.
In 2015, services made up more than half of China’s GDP for the first time, and are growing at a faster rate than any other sector of the economy. The Chinese government envisions the VAT reform to further propel growth in services and consumption as the country pivots away from the low value-added industries. The broader introduction of the VAT is also designed to encourage low-end manufacturers to upgrade their technology and capabilities, and to invest in research and development in order to move up the value chain.
China has had a VAT system in place since the country’s bold reforms and opening up to the world economy in 1979. The tax system underwent a major overhaul in 1994, as the VAT was expanded to include the sale of goods, processing, and repair services, while directing more revenue to the central government. The expansion of the VAT is expected to reduce tax payments by a total of RMB 500 billion (US$77 billion) in 2016, largely at the expense of local governments.
These Chinese VAT policies let us know what was once US corporations were not paying any foreign national taxes as global manufacturing and services corporations.
TPP to cost U.S. billions in lost tariffs
By ADAM BEHSUDI
01/20/2016 10:00 AM EST POLITICO
With help from Doug Palmer, Victoria Guida and Darren Goode
TPP TO COST U.S. BILLIONS IN LOST TARIFFS:
The approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement could cost the United States more than $15 billion in lost tariff revenue over the first 10 years of the pact, experts say, potentially leading to new fees on businesses or spending cuts to cover the tab, reports Pro Trade’s Doug Palmer this morning.
About two-thirds of the 6,000-plus pages in the TPP agreement consist of tariff elimination schedules, John Murphy, a senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, noted last week at an International Trade Commission hearing on the economic impact of the pact. “This translates into about 18,000 tax cuts on U.S. goods sold abroad and 6,000 tax cuts on goods imported into United States from other TPP nations,” he said. Pros can read the rest of Palmer’s article here: http://politico.pro/1UaYXI3
CUSTOMS BILL ON THE HORIZON:
The long-awaited customs bill could move in the Senate as early as next week despite continued opposition to an unrelated internet access tax provision, a Senate aide tells Pro Trade.
Sen. Dick Durbin continues to lead efforts to strip a permanent ban on the internet access tax from the House-passed conference report associated with H.R. 644, arguing the issue should not be addressed without also considering separate legislation to allow states to collect sales taxes on online purchases. The Illinois Democrat seems poised to raise a point of order on the issue, which would have to be overcome by a vote of 60, the same number required to reach cloture.
No problem, say bill proponents. As long as Republicans can get 10 or 11 Democrats to join them, they’ll have enough votes to overcome Durbin’s attempts to spike the legislation, they believe. And Democratic supporters of the bill say, as of Friday, they can now deliver 13 members of their party.
TURNBULL: CHINA MARKET WOES A GOOD SIGN:
Troubles in the Chinese market are actually a positive sign that Beijing is adjusting to its economy, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Tuesday. “China is going through an economic transition. It has had an economy that has been driven for many years now by — deliberately by government [intervention]. It’s been driven by investment, and by exports,” he said. “It’s clearly been unsustainable.”
“This rebalancing has to happen,” he added. “It is an overwhelmingly good thing,” he said, though he noted the negative effects on the prices for certainty commodities like iron or coal. “As more of the GDP of China, more of China’s wealth finds its way into Chinese households, they will become ... much greater consumers,” he said.
In the same speech, Turnbull said he would tell U.S. lawmakers, during his visit to Washington, to focus on the larger economic and strategic benefits of TPP, rather than only on the details.
“When I'm speaking to some of your legislators later in the day, I'll be encouraging them to support the TPP, to not lose sight of the wood for the trees, not to get lost in this detail or that detail,” Turnbull said. “Because the big picture is the rules-based international order, which America has underwritten for generations. ... TPP is a key element of that.”
U.S.-CHINA INVESTMENT PACT TOPS GROUP’S 2016 WISH LIST:
The U.S.-China Business Council is urging the U.S. and Chinese governments to finish work on a bilateral investment treaty this year. “A BIT provides one of the best opportunities to reduce investment barriers in both countries, ensure a level playing field among all enterprises, and improve protections for U.S. and Chinese investors in each other’s markets,” the group said in its annual priority statement.
In a controversial area for the United States, the USCBC pressed the Obama administration to designate China as a “market economy” under U.S. trade remedy law by December. That is strongly opposed by the steel industry, which believes the change could result in significantly lower anti-dumping duties in trade cases brought against China.
USCBC President John Frisbie told reporters he believed it could create “a big problem” in bilateral relations if the United States doesn’t provide the market economy status that Beijing believes it is guaranteed to get this year under the terms of its entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. He said arguments that China isn’t really entitled to the upgrade this year “are pretty thinly supported, at best.” To read more, click here: http://bit.ly/1Jgx6FX
SENATE LOOKS TO REV UP ENERGY DEBATE:
The Senate could begin debating this week a new energy policy package that includes provisions for expediting liquefied natural gas exports. The 424-page plan from Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski and ranking member Maria Cantwell would also modernize infrastructure and expand energy efficiency.
But don’t expect the energy measure to get much attention unless the the upper chamber fails to take up a Republican bill aimed at limiting the entry of Syrian refugees into the U.S. Republicans needed 60 votes Wednesday afternoon to start debating a House-passed Syrian refugee bill that Democrats largely opposed and the White House has threatened to veto. If the vote on the procedural move to take up that bill fails, a senior Senate Democratic aide said, the energy bill could then be called up.
WAYS AND MEANS REPUBLICANS POLICY RETREAT:
Look for more clarity soon from the House Ways and Means Committee on its path forward with the TPP. The panel’s Republicans are scheduled to hold a policy retreat next Monday, a committee spokeswoman confirms. Plus, Chairman Kevin Brady indicated last week that the committee could hold a hearing on TPP next month but that would be laid out in more detail after the retreat.
Trade also is likely to come up when Ways and Means holds its first hearing of the year on Jan. 26, the spokeswoman said. The hearing is titled, “Reaching America’s potential: delivering growth and opportunity for all Americans.” More information here: http://1.usa.gov/1SuTPRq
AUTO PARTS ASSOCIATION ENDORSES TPP:
The Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 1,000 auto supply companies, is urging Congress to ratify the deal but say they’re concerned it might not provide long-term protection for small, regional U.S. suppliers. The group is calling on the administration and Congress to protect and provide additional resources to small companies in three ways:
First, MEMA demands that the agreement’s rules of origin are actively monitored for compliance and that feedback is solicited regularly from the industry. Second, MEMA urges improvements to the Federal Research and Development Tax Credit by optimizing its benefits. Finally, the association wants the administration to improve vehicle technologies research and development at the Department of Energy by adopting changes to the existing program outlined in the Vehicle Innovation Act. Read the full statement here: http://politico.pro/1nwG7AG
ANALYST: SIDE DEALS COULD PAVE WAY FOR QUICK TPP VOTE:
Congressional approval of the TPP could happen quickly in the second quarter of 2016 if the White House can work out deals with congressional leaders on problem areas like biologics, tobacco and financial service data concerns, predicts Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
“Once they come up with a deal and they table the legislation, then it’s in the interest of the congressional leadership to get it done,” Schott told POLITICO Pro. “The wild card is getting the implementing legislation drafted and the key to [that] is to resolve these political problems.”
Trade promotion authority requires Congress to vote to approve or reject the agreement within 90 days of the White House submitting it for a vote. But Congress shouldn’t need anything close to that to pass the pact if the right deals have been struck, Schott said.
In 2011, President Barack Obama submitted trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia to Congress on Oct. 3. It took the House and Senate just eight days to complete committee and floor action on agreements and Obama signed them into law on Oct. 21.
Still, to set up a similar scenario for TPP, “the administration has to work out fixes with congressional leaders fairly quickly,” Schott said. The former U.S. Treasury official said he does not believe it would be politically viable to pass TPP in the lame duck session of Congress if it has not happened by then.
FROMAN: ‘WHY WAIT’ ON TPP VOTE?
In that vein, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman appears to be chomping at the bit to get to a vote. “With this historic agreement in hand, the question isn’t whether America should lead on trade, but why wait?,” Froman will say to the U.S. Conference of Mayors this morning, according to advance excerpts of his remarks.
“Why wait on cutting thousands of foreign taxes on American exports? Why wait on supporting additional high-paying middle class jobs here in the United States? Why wait on helping our small businesses succeed overseas?,” Froman plans to ask the group. “As mayors, your voices carry as much weight as the great responsibilities that rest on your shoulders. Over one hundred of you supported passage of Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority last summer, and that was critical in helping us get it done. Now, with this historic TPP agreement in hand, your cities are closer than ever to realizing its benefits. Together, we can get it done."