On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:38:10 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:
snip
Has Obama done anything about the incentives to move manufacturing out of
this country?

RogerN
==========
An excellent question for this NG.

In point of fact, the major responsibility belongs to
Congress as they are tasked with enacting/amending the laws.

Over the last few days, a feeble pro-forma attempt was made
in the Senate to encourage the return of jobs to the U.S.
and discourage their export. As would be expected, while
there was majority support in the Senate, the
extra-constitutional 60 vote super majority requirement
prevented any consideration.

On examination, the major effect of the proposed legislation
would be increased welfare for America's deadbeat tin cup
corporations.

FWIW -- I sent the following email to my Senators and
Representative. While the referenced Senate bill is now
dead, feel free to use any or all of it if you wish to write
to your Congressmen about keeping domestic
employment/production domestic.

------ start of email -----
THE FIRST THING TO DO WHEN YOU ARE IN THE HOLE IS STOP
DIGGING!


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3816/show
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senate....html?x=0&.v=3


While the proposed legislation to reduce "off-shoring" to
preserve American jobs and thus revive the American economy
is well intentioned, this appears to be yet another futile
effort, when the [non] results of similar prior efforts are
examined. Indeed, on examination, this particular bill
appears to be yet another Congressional "donation" to
America's "tin cup" beggar corporations.

What is suggested is that immediate steps be taken to revise
the IRS code to prevent *ANY* taxpayer subsidies, either tax
deductions for "depreciation" or interest, investment or
"research" tax credits, or direct grants/subsidies for U.S.
domiciled corporations or companies for "investments" made
for plants, machines, research, etc. unless these are sited,
and the operations conducted in the U.S., under U.S. tax
law, employing 95% U.S. citizens, including management.

An extension of this change in policy and regulations to
eliminate U.S. tax payer subsidy and promotion of
"off-shoring," is the drastic tightening of the rules on
"transfer pricing," whereby taxes on the profits from
"off-shoring" and the importation of "off-shore" produced
products are largely evaded, with the profits untaxed until
these are "repatriated," which never occurs until special
provisions are enacted reducing or eliminating the Federal
taxes owed.

To prevent such evasion, the imposition of "unitary
taxation" is suggested whereby the fraction of the U.S.
profits generated worldwide by a transnational corporation,
and on which U.S. taxes are due, are determined by the
fraction of gross sales/business conducted in the U.S. For
example, if a transnational corporation does 80% of their
gross business/sales in the U.S., then it is assumed that
80% of their worldwide net profit was earned in the U.S.,
and their U.S. taxes are calculated accordingly.

Note that none of these proposals limits in any way the
right of corporations to site their production/research
facilities anywhere they wish, nor to import as much of the
production as they wish to the U.S., nor do these limit in
any way the amount of tax benefits/subsidies other
governments may offer for the construction and/or operation
of plants or facilities.

What these proposals will do is to insure that U.S. taxpayer
funds are not used to eliminate U.S. jobs and reduce the
U.S. tax base, and to insure corporations doing business in
the U.S. pay their full share of the cost of running the
U.S. government. Any corporations that feel this is unfair
are free to leave and/or to stop doing business in the U.S.
----- end of email -----


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).