4 ms·
This makes sense to me. If you make this money overseas... shouldn't you use the money in whatever nation you made it in to make that nation better ???? I think
by bilbo0s 12y ago
This makes sense to me. If you make this money overseas... shouldn't you use the money in whatever nation you made it in to make that nation better ???? I think people who talk about taxes really miss this point. Because the taxes talk is all predicated on a foregone conclusion that bringing money to the US is the best thing you can do for shareholders. I'm not sure that's true.
- tonfa 12y agoIn the case of Apple or Microsoft, most of the value (r&d) is generated in the US, so it would be fair to tax them there. Other countries already have sales tax.
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoMost? Microsoft has 128,000 employees worldwide, 61,000 of them in the USA.
- ithkuil 12y agoIf I understood correctly, the problem is that the money made abroad, is made by using the intellectual property owned (and presumably gained) in the U.S and some people think the U.S. should get a share of those profits. However: 1) while it's true that good part of the actual work has been done in the U.S., great part of the value comes from the effort (marketing, sales, R&D, ...) that happens in the subsidiaries; it's not easy to quantify, but certainly those people are actually doing something, aren't they? 2) as far as I understood, the U.S. income tax is not paid until that money gets back to the U.S. In fact it stays abroad, deferring the tax payment. The subsidiary could use that money to invest and expand the foreign market, with indirect but substantial domestic benefits. I believe the issue of tax loophole in the country where the actual subsidiary works, is a different matter; but I don't understand what's the problem per-se with having stashes of oversea money held by a foreign subsidiary of your company.