The Gaming Den

Sashi wrote:.... so I don't know why we need to drive corporations to funnel their money into Ireland or Bermuda (note, I am not an economist).

I'm not sure you understand how capitalism works. We don't "drive" companies into evading their taxes. They already have extremely high incentives already to do it.... namely money. Any taxes at all give them a reason to evade paying those taxes.

I mean, we could try to have corporate taxes as low as Bermuda (a few percent), but it doesn't matter because as low as we go Bermuda can go lower. In a very literal sense, ANY income they get from being a tax haven is bonus for their country. I mean, it's not like Bermuda has any native corporations that can be taxed.

I mean, shareholders will sue a company if they don't try to evade taxes. That's how capitalism works. We literally could have a tax rate of 0% and corporations still would look ways to get money out of the government (bail-outs, lower loan rates from the Fed, etc).

Um, duh? We're not driving them in the sense of using a broom to get rid of cats, but we're "driving" them in the sense of shit rolling downhill and we built the hill. Any tax rate above zero can be undercut by Bermuda and so it will. Which means that all corporate taxes do is give money to Bermuda and punish companies too small to afford maintaining the accounting it takes to give money to Bermuda.

Sashi wrote:Um, duh? We're not driving them in the sense of using a broom to get rid of cats, but we're "driving" them in the sense of shit rolling downhill and we built the hill. Any tax rate above zero can be undercut by Bermuda and so it will. Which means that all corporate taxes do is give money to Bermuda and punish companies too small to afford maintaining the accounting it takes to give money to Bermuda.

Ok, that's retarded. Having corporate taxes does not automatically mean they shift profits to foreign nations.

Allowing them to use corporate shell games does. This really is a loophole we could close.

I mean, Google's tax plan was actually approved by the IRS before they even tried it. We really could do things like pay down the deficit if we made it illegal to do this.

Taxes are how we keep the government running and society functioning, including the business environment that makes economic growth possible. Only douches think that lowering or removing taxes somehow magically creates growth. I mean, right now corporations are sitting on huge stockpiles of cash and the banks that were bailed out are making record profits and the both groups are just sitting on that profit and not investing, essentially proving that trickle-down economics are just a sham. The companies are not creating jobs and banks are not lending money.... they're keeping all the money.

K wrote:Ok, that's retarded. Having corporate taxes does not automatically mean they shift profits to foreign nations.

How do you stop them from shifting profits to foreign nations? As I understand it, Google isn't even shifting profits, they're shifting "licensing fees".

Honest question: how do you keep Google from doing a Double Irish without writing a law that literally says "corporations aren't allowed to pull a double Irish"?

In a sense, the legal system is like the ultimate RPG, except everyone is explicitly not allowed to apply "rule zero" and say "OK, that's bullshit verpowered, stop doing it." and there are at least thousands of people (accountants, lawyers) working full time to find exploits.

Try to write a labor code that allows a company to open a new branch in India but doesn't allow them to outsource their tech support to India. I honestly don't believe it's possible without some kind of "I know it when I see it" clause.

Sashi wrote:

K wrote:Ok, that's retarded. Having corporate taxes does not automatically mean they shift profits to foreign nations.

How do you stop them from shifting profits to foreign nations? As I understand it, Google isn't even shifting profits, they're shifting "licensing fees".

Honest question: how do you keep Google from doing a Double Irish without writing a law that literally says "corporations aren't allowed to pull a double Irish"?

In a sense, the legal system is like the ultimate RPG, except everyone is explicitly not allowed to apply "rule zero" and say "OK, that's bullshit verpowered, stop doing it." and there are at least thousands of people (accountants, lawyers) working full time to find exploits.

Try to write a labor code that allows a company to open a new branch in India but doesn't allow them to outsource their tech support to India. I honestly don't believe it's possible without some kind of "I know it when I see it" clause.

You change the rules on transfer pricing - google can only do this because they sold the IP rights to a related entity at below market rates. Which is what should be illegal.

If the IP was generated in the US, the US subsidiary should be forced to recognise the revenue, either from a fair value sale (which could be taxed) or from incremental revenues.

cthulhu wrote:You change the rules on transfer pricing - google can only do this because they sold the IP rights to a related entity at below market rates. Which is what should be illegal.

If the IP was generated in the US, the US subsidiary should be forced to recognise the revenue, either from a fair value sale (which could be taxed) or from incremental revenues.

How do you determine what "market rates" are? You're talking about an infinite number of financial lawsuits that boil down to "prove you're sending money to <country> to support a business there, and not just to avoid paying corporate taxes".

The other option is to make it illegal or heavily tax international money transfers which, while doable, is incredibly protectionist and would probably collapse the US economy.

Sashi wrote:

cthulhu wrote:You change the rules on transfer pricing - google can only do this because they sold the IP rights to a related entity at below market rates. Which is what should be illegal.

If the IP was generated in the US, the US subsidiary should be forced to recognise the revenue, either from a fair value sale (which could be taxed) or from incremental revenues.

How do you determine what "market rates" are? You're talking about an infinite number of financial lawsuits that boil down to "prove you're sending money to <country> to support a business there, and not just to avoid paying corporate taxes".

The other option is to make it illegal or heavily tax international money transfers which, while doable, is incredibly protectionist and would probably collapse the US economy.

Easily? Use the actual outcomes achieved in the other country to determine market rates?

cthulhu wrote:Easily? Use the actual outcomes achieved in the other country to determine market rates?

You're kidding, right? Even if you taxes all international money transfers except for payroll, Bermuda would just create a class of "corporate citizen" who is taxed at X% and is contractually compelled to transfer all but %Y dollars of their income to a holding company. You could literally have a "Minister of Corporate Finance" who earns an income of zillions of dollars a year from thousands of corporations and then transfers that money, within the Bermudan financial system and immune to US tax law, to specific holding companies.

The only way to be guaranteed of stoping stuff like this is to pass a "you can't take money outside of our borders, ever" type law. Which is enormously isolationist and would utterly destroy us in the world economy.

Sashi wrote:

cthulhu wrote:Easily? Use the actual outcomes achieved in the other country to determine market rates?

You're kidding, right? Even if you taxes all international money transfers except for payroll, Bermuda would just create a class of "corporate citizen" who is taxed at X% and is contractually compelled to transfer all but %Y dollars of their income to a holding company. You could literally have a "Minister of Corporate Finance" who earns an income of zillions of dollars a year from thousands of corporations and then transfers that money, within the Bermudan financial system and immune to US tax law, to specific holding companies.

The only way to be guaranteed of stoping stuff like this is to pass a "you can't take money outside of our borders, ever" type law. Which is enormously isolationist and would utterly destroy us in the world economy.

No, you just prevent recognition of transactions within tax havens. We already have a list of them.

K wrote:I mean, Google's tax plan was actually approved by the IRS before they even tried it. We really could do things like pay down the deficit if we made it illegal to do this.

And that is, I think, the ultimate problem. We can't make it illegal to do this because nobody even understands the tax code anymore. Well, Google accountants and the IRS might, but the Congress sure does not! And it seems that Congress never asks the IRS for their opinion before passing a new tax law.

I think this is one case where you really need to clear away the rubble before you can rebuild.

So you're talking about "I know it when I see it" classification of tax havens? That's an extremely expensive game of red light green light with every international transaction, plus constant lawsuits about whether Google's decision to transfer $Xbillion to Bermuda had the "intent" to advance business interests in Bermuda or was intended to use Bermuda as a tax haven.

Basically, you're talking about adding more and more countries to the Cuba list, where US corporations aren't allowed to transfer money to ____ because they are a known _____.

Surgo wrote:

K wrote:I mean, Google's tax plan was actually approved by the IRS before they even tried it. We really could do things like pay down the deficit if we made it illegal to do this.

And that is, I think, the ultimate problem. We can't make it illegal to do this because nobody even understands the tax code anymore. Well, Google accountants and the IRS might, but the Congress sure does not! And it seems that Congress never asks the IRS for their opinion before passing a new tax law.

I think this is one case where you really need to clear away the rubble before you can rebuild.

I'm 100% in favor of sunset clauses for everything.

Regarding the rich moving to Tax Havens... again, it's simply way too easy because there are too many countries whose entire existence depends on keeping rich people's money safe. Just look at Switzerland.

And while money isn't the same as actual resources, rich people's money is an important source of liquidity. And an economy can't run unless you keep the money flowing - that's why you need rich people to keep spending instead of hiding their money in a Swiss Bank account.

Psychic Robot wrote:Aside from that, I've been thinking that minimum wage is a problem. Not a problem that needs to be eliminated altogether, mind you, but minimum wage disproportionately hurts small businesses, hindering their growth. What if minimum wage were based on annual income? So really small businesses might have a low-end minimum wage of $5.00/hour whereas giant megacorporations would have a high-end minimum wage of $15/hour?

The real problem isn't the minimum wage. It's that American industries simply aren't producing goods and services that are worth the labor costs anymore.

The problem, again, can be traced back to the service-based economy. You cannot have a country whose economy revolves around everyone giving back rubs to each other (and at high prices enforced by the minimum wage).

Ultimately, somebody has to do the back-breaking work of growing crops, mining metals, and manning factories to produce stuff with value. Anyone can do a back rub, but not everyone can produce actual goods out of thin air - you need mines, factories, and farms to do that.

The problem with the US is that you've given up on manufacturing (due to that whole service-based economy ideology) and raw material production (because of the environmental protection laws). Heck, if your agricultural sector wasn't so productive, chances are people may have tried to outsource that to other countries too.

As a result, nowadays, the US pretty much has to import just about everything it actually needs. You haven't had a trade surplus since 1975, and your deficit nowadays is around 800 billion to 1 trillon dollars.

So that record 1 trillion dollar stimulus package? All of that actually went to China and rest of the world in just one year.

(And that's actually the reason why Keynesian economics don't work anymore. Keynesian economics work if the money stays within the national economy. With free trade, you're actually pumping money into the people who actually produce goods regardless of country - which in the current age is China)

MfA wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:Wow, I'd be pissed if I were rich and wanted to retire in Europe.

Selling your property, exchanging your money for Euros and moving to Europe doesn't take wealth out of the US.

To take wealth out of the US you have to take product out of the US ... so for instance if you retain company ownership within the US, use the profits to buy products and ship them to the EU ... then you're taking wealth out of the US.

Taking out allot of capital would lead to less wealth generation and thus mean less wealth.

Sashi wrote:How do you determine what "market rates" are?

Force them to be put up for public auction.

Data Vampire wrote:Taking out allot of capital would lead to less wealth generation and thus mean less wealth.

Capital in a fiat currency world is easily replaced.

Zinegata wrote:The real problem isn't the minimum wage. It's that American industries simply aren't producing goods and services that are worth the labor costs anymore.

That's a consequence of free trade and the fact Chinese are willing/able to work for less (they still have 100s of millions of subsistence farmers ready to do the same, so that's not going to change any time soon).

Ultimately, somebody has to do the back-breaking work of growing crops, mining metals, and manning factories to produce stuff with value. Anyone can do a back rub, but not everyone can produce actual goods out of thin air - you need mines, factories, and farms to do that.

Actually it's not back breaking work, the US is still the biggest producer in the world. It just does it with very few workers. A healthy economy can double production every couple of years, that's the reality of technological progress ... ultimately nearly no one will have to do back breaking work.

As a result, nowadays, the US pretty much has to import just about everything it actually needs.

You are reversing cause and effect, the reason the US imports so much is because the Chinese are willing to take ridiculously low yielding debt (or zero yielding currency) in exchange for their products and because the US government believes in free trade uber alles. The Chinese are deferring consumption to attract outsourcing ... a very dangerous game, which they shouldn't even be allowed to play (as I said, Keynes expressed the dangers of unbalanced trade a long time ago).

(And that's actually the reason why Keynesian economics don't work anymore. Keynesian economics work if the money stays within the national economy. With free trade, you're actually pumping money into the people who actually produce goods regardless of country - which in the current age is China)

Keynes was not a free trade proponent.

The Chinese aren't actually willing to work for less. They simply keep their currency exchange rate artificially low so that we pay less when we put our money into their economy. Actual workers get the same relative buying power in their economy.

Normally, the influx of capital would cause inflation, but the Chinese control that as well by price fixing basic goods. Cost and inflation on imports is high, but they are working hard to build industries so that they won't need to import anything.

Essentially they are constantly injecting investment into their economy and controlling for the effects of what that would normally do in a free market (rampant inflation, debt, potential loss of skilled workers due to brain drain). As a bonus, they also get large stacks of foreign currency.

It's really quite brilliant. I mean, the value of money is just a shared illusion, and they have found a way to control the perception to turbo charge growth. That growth will last as long as it takes to convert the farmer caste into industrial/city workers.

Interesting enough, that should also solve their population growth problem (cities are negative population growth areas, so once they have built enough for the new workers they will have solved two problems with one solution).

MfA wrote:Keynes was not a free trade proponent.

Which is again why ultimately, government spending no longer works as a stimulant to the economy.

And yes, you can rage against free trade as it's a very major reason why America is getting creamed (and no, it's not because of China's overly low wages. It's because America's wages are still too high despite increased worker productivity due to technology).

But having America shutoff free trade nowadays will only result in massive inflation at best (for America), and World War 3 at worst for the rest of the world.

Zinegata wrote:
And yes, you can rage against free trade as it's a very major reason why America is getting creamed (and no, it's not because of China's overly low wages. It's because America's wages are still too high despite increased worker productivity due to technology).

Workers wages are not too high. The exchange rate just favors undeveloped countries.

If we devalued the dollar to match undeveloped countries, outsourcing would end tomorrow.

K wrote:

Zinegata wrote:
And yes, you can rage against free trade as it's a very major reason why America is getting creamed (and no, it's not because of China's overly low wages. It's because America's wages are still too high despite increased worker productivity due to technology).

Workers wages are not too high. The exchange rate just favors undeveloped countries.

If we devalued the dollar to match undeveloped countries, outsourcing would end tomorrow.

I should clarify, because you are correct about the exchange rate. Worker wages in the US are relatively high compared to the rest of the world due to exchange rates. But if you live in places like California, such wages are indeed just barely enough to survive.

The last fact doesn't really matter to business though, because what they're comparing wages from a global perspective, not from a local one.

------

Also...

Devaluing the dollar to such extremes is a *bad* idea. Because it would make imports a lot more expensive. You're gonna see a LOT of inflation.

While it would be addressed *eventually* by increased domestic production, it won't be as fast as in 1942 because much of the industrial investments of the past 25 years went to other countries.

America in 1942 got out of the Depression incredibly quickly because while the stock markets collapsed during the 30s, the industrial base remained intact. They just needed to bring a lot of factories back up to full capacity.

I don't think the same is true for America nowadays anymore, as too many factories and plants have been totally shut down. And again, resource extraction (mining, oil drilling, etc) is being hampered by environmental protection laws.

And on top of all that, you're gonna threaten China and a lot of export-oriented nations with economic hardship or collapse. China may just say "screw you assholes" at this point and start World War 3.

Fixing the American economy has no quick solutions like "Massively devalue the dollar!" or "Get out of the WTO!". Like it or not, the world economies are too interconnected now. Upsetting the current balance will have a lot of aftershocks that may have very terrible political ramifications.

K wrote:The Chinese aren't actually willing to work for less. They simply keep their currency exchange rate artificially low so that we pay less when we put our money into their economy. Actual workers get the same relative buying power in their economy.

Normally, the influx of capital would cause inflation, but the Chinese control that as well by price fixing basic goods. Cost and inflation on imports is high, but they are working hard to build industries so that they won't need to import anything.

Essentially they are constantly injecting investment into their economy and controlling for the effects of what that would normally do in a free market (rampant inflation, debt, potential loss of skilled workers due to brain drain). As a bonus, they also get large stacks of foreign currency.

It's really quite brilliant. I mean, the value of money is just a shared illusion, and they have found a way to control the perception to turbo charge growth. That growth will last as long as it takes to convert the farmer caste into industrial/city workers.

Interesting enough, that should also solve their population growth problem (cities are negative population growth areas, so once they have built enough for the new workers they will have solved two problems with one solution).

This is all more or less correct. However, I need to point something out:

The Achilles heel of the Chinese economy is that it needs a huge amount of raw materials - raw materials which exist outside of China's borders.

China is trying to limit these imports by building up domestic industries, but it's not gonna be enough. China has intervened and will continue to intervene (but not necessarily militarily) in Third World nations which can provide it with raw materials.

Which is why it is very worrying to upset the current trade situation. If China can't get American money or it becomes devalued, it becomes harder to buy the crucial raw material imports. And given what some Chinese companies are already doing in Africa, I wouldn't dismiss war as an option for the Chinese Politburo.

The status quo has terrible ramifications as well (the status quo being indefinite increases in debt and QE). The ramification being massive sovereign defaults.

Deleveraging of all the first world economies has terrible ramifications as well. Global deflationary depression probably lasting a decade or so (this seems to be where we are heading, although the Fed might save us all by starting a currency war ... not great for stability but a hell of a lot better than global deflation).

Sooner or later debts will have to be wiped out and balanced trade has to emerge. Some of the ways to get to that point are more painful than others.

The current status quo is bad for the US, but again you can't just implement radical solutions willy-nilly anymore unless you want to risk economic collapses elsewhere in the world and provoking World War 3.

What you can do however, is to implement some incremental changes to reverse the trend. Moving away from the service-based economy idea, relaxing the environmental protection laws, and giving incentives to open manufacturing jobs would be a start.

WW3 won't ever happen. We live in the age of nuclear weapons and stealth bombers, and nuclear-capable nations might do little border skuffles or rough up a third world nation, but wars among the leading economies are over as a viable means to do anything.

At worse, we get economic sanctions. China's worse move would be to declare that they were taking their ball and going home and no longer shipping goods to the US, but then they'd lose our business AND we'd never pay our debt to them.

Frankly, they need us more than we need them, and their threats amount to nothing more than saber-rattling to try to prove to their own people that they are worthy of respect.

I mean, we can always find another shithole for manufacturing; they won't find a market of consumers like us.

As for keeping the US as the leading economic power, I think that's not possible. We've been riding a wave of prosperity because after WW2 every industrial nation was decimated except us, and now that the rest of the world is rebuilt other nations compete with us.

A special note on environmental protections: they prevent cost shifting like medical costs from waste and air pollution, loss of land, pollution of the ground water, destruction of usable land, and various other problems.

I mean, mining in particular can make the land unlivable for tens of miles in all directions from the pollution of the ground water. If you charged the company the cost of the medical bills and cleaning up the land, there is more profit in shipping in metal from other nations (who don't mind turning large stretches of their own land into a unlivable hellscape).

Personally, I'd rather pay more money for goods and less on medical treatment for my shortened lifespan.

My personal prescription for wealth generation would be to cut out military spending and spend that money on research (assuming we can fix IP laws to keep profits here). We spend more money on military than the next seven nations combined..... we could easily out-research the world if we cut back and spend maybe as much as China and England combined. We'd have to give up on foreign adventures, but considering I still don't know what our trillions of dollars have gotten us in the Middle East in light of the fact that we've caught less than a dozen terrorists involved in actual plots against the US since 9/11 AND they've been caught by domestic law enforcement and not the military.