On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:42:39 -0400, Drifter wrote:

I wonder why corporations leave the US tax haven and move to far off
places? Harry knows the answer but he won't admit it.

======

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.

On 11/3/11 1:32 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:42:39 -0400, wrote:

I wonder why corporations leave the US tax haven and move to far off
places? Harry knows the answer but he won't admit it.

======

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

On 11/3/2011 1:53 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/3/11 1:32 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:42:39 -0400, wrote:

I wonder why corporations leave the US tax haven and move to far off
places? Harry knows the answer but he won't admit it.

======

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

--
1-20-13 The end of an error

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:53:59 -0400, Drifter wrote:

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

=========

Proving once again that you can't educate those who already know
everything, or those who don't know what they don't know. :-)

On 11/3/11 4:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:53:59 -0400, wrote:

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

=========

Proving once again that you can't educate those who already know
everything, or those who don't know what they don't know. :-)


The only thing that you've proven in all your corporationist posts,
Beardsley, is that no matter what excesses corporations commit, you'll
favor them.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:10:04 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 11/3/11 4:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:53:59 -0400, wrote:

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

=========

Proving once again that you can't educate those who already know
everything, or those who don't know what they don't know. :-)


The only thing that you've proven in all your corporationist posts,
Beardsley, is that no matter what excesses corporations commit, you'll
favor them.

========

Usually when I run into someone with attitudes similar to yours it
turns out that they were never able to get, or hold, a job with a
corporation. Frequently the reason is related to personality, skills
(lack thereof) or work ethic. I'd guess that in your case it's a
personality issue. Hopefully Ms. Greer will be willing to keep you on
a while longer as CEO job at Harry Krause & Associates. That would be
the pits getting fired from your own company.

On 11/3/11 5:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:10:04 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 11/3/11 4:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:53:59 -0400, wrote:

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

=========

Proving once again that you can't educate those who already know
everything, or those who don't know what they don't know. :-)


The only thing that you've proven in all your corporationist posts,
Beardsley, is that no matter what excesses corporations commit, you'll
favor them.

========

Usually when I run into someone with attitudes similar to yours it
turns out that they were never able to get, or hold, a job with a
corporation. Frequently the reason is related to personality, skills
(lack thereof) or work ethic. I'd guess that in your case it's a
personality issue. Hopefully Ms. Greer will be willing to keep you on
a while longer as CEO job at Harry Krause& Associates. That would be
the pits getting fired from your own company.


Oh, Beardsley,...give it up. I'm simply not a fan of the sort of
corporate abuse that has been perpetrated on this country since the
1980's. I've worked for corporations, and I still have as clients
several corporations with whom I have been doing business for decades.
In fact, I just finished a draft of a speech one of my clients will be
presenting and will get paid in the five figures for it.

You seem to be "stuck" on a Florida corporation that hasn't been active
for well over a decade. That's your problem, not mine.

On 11/5/2011 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:53:59 -0400, wrote:

On 11/3/2011 1:53 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/3/11 1:32 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:42:39 -0400, wrote:

I wonder why corporations leave the US tax haven and move to far off
places? Harry knows the answer but he won't admit it.

======

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

And we should adopt that ASSUMPTION as fact? Why?

I don't know. Should you? You tell me.

--
1-20-13 The end of an error

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 21:24:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:29:15 -0400, Drifter wrote:

On 11/5/2011 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:53:59 -0400, wrote:

On 11/3/2011 1:53 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/3/11 1:32 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:42:39 -0400, wrote:

I wonder why corporations leave the US tax haven and move to far off
places? Harry knows the answer but he won't admit it.

======

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

And we should adopt that ASSUMPTION as fact? Why?

I don't know. Should you? You tell me.

OK, I'll play. I'd never make an argument based on the "intelligent
assumption" of another person. Intelligent is subjective and
assumption is, well: arrogance; presumption, presumptuousness,
effrontery, forwardness, gall.

But, go ahead, stick it out there with subjective effrontery and see
if you don't get it sliced off....

=========

Not sure exactly what your point is but you don't have to take my word
for it:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3441

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/11/04/Can-Corporate-Tax-Reform-Really-Be-Revenue-Neutral.aspx#page1

http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2011/06/chuck_schumers_amazing_double-.php

http://www.fiscalaccountability.org/index.php?content=cog09-15#