No, no, no... what Hess is looking for is an organization or process that will protect American jobs from being transferred to people (places) that can do the job cheaper, even though it is what is good for the business (profit) and against their basic motivation (make money for the stock holders).
Let's see, what can we call something like that... how about the Great American Patriotic Founding Fathers Constitutional Red White and Blue Union... doh!!!
Hess is onto something, even if his methods are a bit wonky:
Unions - self serving, working only to keep themselves alive
Corporate top management - See Unions
Politicians (both sides of the aisle) - see Corp top Mgt...
I work for a company - a service provider, an international business, and part of a larger international conglomerate. In a recent meeting, we were presented with a video from the CEO, where he told us that all our hard work recently with regards to company-wide cost reduction strategies (no raises, no bonuses, no promotions unless a person leaves the company, higher benefits cost to the employee, no overtime etc etc etc) had paid "HUGE" dividends to the companies bottom line. We are up over 20% in cash/revenue/bartered goats/what have you, and he "very much appreciated all our hard work". Im sure he does. I wonder how many shares he owns...what a 20+% increase in profits means for him? For me, it means nothing. I still get no raise, bonuses, promotions, overtime, or other considerations. My medical insurance is still more expensive this year than last, and the company still is not going to match on my 401k.
I dont think we need unions in the US, but I do think we need to have some structure within the larger cops that operate in the US lending some accountability to the little guy. If I dont make a widget, the company doesnt make a buck. But if the CEO doesnt show up for a day, the machine keeps moving, at least in the short term. The corporate climate in the US needs to reflect that dynamic. Want tax breaks MegaCorp? Sure, here ya go, but you gotta offer profit sharing. Want to avoid penalties for outsourced labor? No prob, but youll have to be held accountable to your employees in some form or another. Im not sure that I want to see more legislation, but I do want to see some accountability to the hourly guys from the trust funders...
After World War Two the United States was in major debt, just as we are now. Consequently the highest tax bracket was set at 94%. Also consequently we payed off that debt.
Companies don't do anything for their workers anymore! I can't name one company that still has pensions. I believe in protecting the average worker, not the CEO's of companies.
Unnecessary legislation/bureaucracy sucks.
This does not mean that all legislation/bureaucracy is unnecessary.
Corporations are by design not concerned with things other than their bottom line. That's not of necessity a problem unless we trust them to look out for us where our well-being and their bottom line are competition.
The consumer let it happen, combined with the government and their high corporation taxes.
The CEOs aren't really the problem here. It's capitalism, despite the government meddling where they will, and the CEOs have figured it out. Bravo to them. It's capitalism, but with people too dumb and greedy and intent on saving their $2 on two weeks worth of groceries to have the foresight to realize the affect their actions have.
ransom wrote: Unnecessary legislation/bureaucracy sucks. This does not mean that all legislation/bureaucracy is unnecessary. Corporations are by design not concerned with things other than their bottom line. That's not of necessity a problem unless we trust them to look out for us where our well-being and their bottom line are competition.
the problem is that they choose to cut employee compensation ...or headcount - first. In my job, theres TONS of waste - all over. Applications that dont work, double or tripling work due to other inefficiencies designed into the system, slow turnaround due to internal bureaucracy etc. These all result in massive waste that can be seen by those of us at the bottom. THe talkign heads in the sky cant see that crap down here because their yacht never sails by. The issue is that salary and headcount can bee seen from the lounge at the country club, and changed fast and thoroughly by the upper mgt. So rather than doing the hard work to clear the clutter and make the company stronger through revitalizing the operation and moving forward with a clear gameplan, they CHOOSE to cut heads and compensation because its fast and the results are easy to calculate.
In reply to 4cylndrfury:
Exactly. The easiest way to improve their bottom line is to take it out of yours. Your particular examples get into internal workings which I don't think can be regulated without making things worse instead of better.
I do tend to think, though, that it's possible that if the workforce is better protected against that sort of hackery, that the organization would be forced to address the more serious organizational inefficiencies in order to remain viable.
This quickly turns into a legal shell game, with mounting corporate and bureaucratic legal staffs. OTOH, I don't see just letting them do what they want as a viable alternative.
You guys are all screwing up by trying to align Hess with one standard political view and claiming he is illogical because he doesn't fit. Hess has his own views outside of any major political party and is pretty clear about them.
alfadriver wrote: I suppse we should turn in the research dollars that DOE has given us to work with. Great spin, Hess- the best of Fox would be proud of you. Take fact 1- the current administration wants to expand trade with Russia. And take fact 2- Boeing thinks they can save money on engineering by outsourcing it. Put them together, and you have a fancy way to bash the administration. I wonder how you would have spun #2 had an R been in the house, since it probably would have happened anyway. Clearly, you like your fish.
alfadriver wrote: I suppse we should turn in the research dollars that DOE has given us to work with. Great spin, Hess- the best of Fox would be proud of you. Take fact 1- the current administration wants to expand trade with Russia. And take fact 2- Boeing thinks they can save money on engineering by outsourcing it. Put them together, and you have a fancy way to bash the administration. I wonder how you would have spun #2 had an R been in the house, since it probably would have happened anyway. Clearly, you like your fish.
+1
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: The consumer let it happen, combined with the government and their high corporation taxes.
Actually the high corporation tax rates are a bit off a myth, even if it's a commonly rolled out one. For starters, most of the large companies don't pay the full rate due to money being kept in their offshore subsidiaries. Typical example is here: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/why-your-tax-bill-is-higher-than-ges.aspx
The ones that pay the full rate are unfortunately mostly the small and mid-sized companies, as usual. Same in most other countries, actually.
Second, the tax is on profits, not turnover. Guess what happened when the corporate tax rate was a lot higher? Companies invested a lot more money into R&D...
BoxheadTim wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: The consumer let it happen, combined with the government and their high corporation taxes.Actually the high corporation tax rates are a bit off a myth, even if it's a commonly rolled out one. For starters, most of the large companies don't pay the full rate due to money being kept in their offshore subsidiaries. Typical example is here: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/why-your-tax-bill-is-higher-than-ges.aspx The ones that pay the full rate are unfortunately mostly the small and mid-sized companies, as usual. Same in most other countries, actually. Second, the tax is on _profits_, not turnover. Guess what happened when the corporate tax rate was a lot higher? Companies invested a lot more money into R&D...
May have been a bit over my head, but doesn't that illustrate the situation that started this thread? Bigger push to utilize business/employment/etc overseas to avoid the high US corporate tax rates?
BoxheadTim wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: The consumer let it happen, combined with the government and their high corporation taxes.Actually the high corporation tax rates are a bit off a myth, even if it's a commonly rolled out one. For starters, most of the large companies don't pay the full rate due to money being kept in their offshore subsidiaries. Typical example is here: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/why-your-tax-bill-is-higher-than-ges.aspx The ones that pay the full rate are unfortunately mostly the small and mid-sized companies, as usual. Same in most other countries, actually. Second, the tax is on _profits_, not turnover. Guess what happened when the corporate tax rate was a lot higher? Companies invested a lot more money into R&D...
I'm just going to throw this out there, but WHY do you think companies keep their earnings overseas? Is it to avoid the high tax rates here?
We should lower the tax rate to the point that it costs companies more to hire lawyers/accountants/etc to figure out ways to beat the tax than just pay it.
Yeah, lowering taxes ALWAYS fixes the problem Mr. Reagan...
Figurative puddle of sarcasm
I find that Dr Hess' posts about politics and economics tend to contain two things.
First is some brilliant compelling analysis and insight into how the mindset, practises, assumptions and actions of the business and political elite is short sighted and doing serious harm to the long-term social, poltical, and economic health of the United States.
Second is intensley, bitter, hateful, rage at the Obama Admistration, Democrats. There seems to be a belief that this was all caused by liberal/solialist/communist elite. Everyone whose politcs lie even slightly to left of center have been ruining everything for him his entire life. At least the is the impression I get.
The frustrating thing for me is that on a good day the mix seems for be about 15% insight and 85% bitterness. On a bad day its 100% biterness. I have said this before. If we got more of the brilliant analytic Hess and a lot less of hateful vitimized Hess, his arguements would get a lot more traction.
killerkane wrote: Yeah, lowering taxes ALWAYS fixes the problem Mr. Reagan... *Figurative puddle of sarcasm*
Well... would you rather have 20% of billions of dollars? Orrr... 35% of "N/A" as illustrated in the GE example?
Ideal or not, more money flow kept within this country is never a bad thing.
Corporate taxes are another piece of the puzzle. I suggest ya'll look up "Dutch Sandwich." We get the E36 M3 Sandwich, the multinationals get the other one. Basically, and as near as I can figger, it works like this, picking Google as a prime example. Hi Google.
Google is a US company. But, it "really" isn't. They "buy" services that just happen to cost whatever they get from one of their overseas "affiliates" or subidiaries, hard to tell. In this case, when, say Margie sends Google a e-check for some advertising to up the GRM site when someone googles "miata autocross," let's say, that money doesn't go to Google US. It goes to Google Ireland. Now, Ireland just happens to be in the EU. Funny, but the Netherlands (y0, homies) is in the EU also, and as such, money can flow from Ireland to the Netherlands unchecked. So that GRM dollar goes to Google Netherlands, which has like 2 people in an office somewhere, probably near the red light district in Amsterdam so they can "entertain" the US executives when they "visit." Anyway, once the dollar is in the Netherlands, it can transfer to other Dutch "entities" like the Netherlands Antillies unhindered. Now it's in the Caribbean in a tax haven. So, Google (HI GOOGLE) pays no taxes on its US revenue streams. We get the E36 M3 sandwich and subsidize Google through our taxes for the infrastructure they use, built with tax dollars.
If there's a bean counter out there that has a better understanding of this, I'd like to hear it.
Dr. Hess wrote: Corporate taxes are another piece of the puzzle. I suggest ya'll look up "Dutch Sandwich." We get the E36 M3 Sandwich, the multinationals get the other one. Basically, and as near as I can figger, it works like this, picking Google as a prime example. Hi Google. Google is a US company. But, it "really" isn't. They "buy" services that just happen to cost whatever they get from one of their overseas "affiliates" or subidiaries, hard to tell. In this case, when, say Margie sends Google a e-check for some advertising to up the GRM site when someone googles "miata autocross," let's say, that money doesn't go to Google US. It goes to Google Ireland. Now, Ireland just happens to be in the EU. Funny, but the Netherlands (y0, homies) is in the EU also, and as such, money can flow from Ireland to the Netherlands unchecked. So that GRM dollar goes to Google Netherlands, which has like 2 people in an office somewhere, probably near the red light district in Amsterdam so they can "entertain" the US executives when they "visit." Anyway, once the dollar is in the Netherlands, it can transfer to other Dutch "entities" like the Netherlands Antillies unhindered. Now it's in the Caribbean in a tax haven. So, Google (HI GOOGLE) pays no taxes on its US revenue streams. We get the E36 M3 sandwich and subsidize Google through our taxes for the infrastructure they use, built with tax dollars. If there's a bean counter out there that has a better understanding of this, I'd like to hear it.
The analytic Hess at work.
Type Q wrote: The analytic Hess at work.
Google is staffed by left wing, borderline commie Democrats. Deny that one, Q. Just take a gander at where the political donations went. Always follow the money.
Not that the R's have been much better. The only people consistently to get screwed are us.
killerkane wrote:wbjones wrote:And when did I do that? Let me know when you figure it out...I'd like to know as well.killerkane wrote: P.S. I am not much of a supporter of President Obama however, it is definitely not accurate to blame him for all of the countries problems.don't see much difference in blaming the Prez for all our current problems .... assuming it was ok to blame Bush for things like Katrina and other equally stupid things/attitudes there I guess this puts me solidly in one camp or the other .....
never said you did...... think back to when Katrina happened... there were "news" commentators that actually blamed him for the disaster that hit NO...never could figure out the basis for that ...
sorry ... didn't mean for you to take it personally ... it was more a commentary on the stupidity of partisan politics .... please don't take what I say here as a personal attack 
killerkane wrote: Yeah, lowering taxes ALWAYS fixes the problem Mr. Reagan... *Figurative puddle of sarcasm*
So what college courses are you taking this semester?
killerkane wrote: Yeah, lowering taxes ALWAYS fixes the problem Mr. Reagan... *Figurative puddle of sarcasm*
one thing to think about here... companies don't pay taxes... period.... they either hire the tax lawyers / accountants to find the loop holes (then pass on the cost of that) or the move out of country ( and pass on the cost of doing that) or just bite the bullet, pay the tax (and pass on the cost of doing that) if they didn't they'd go out of business... (pass on the cost I mean) if a co doesn't make a profit they eventually cease to exist... unless they're government supported...
Type Q wrote: The frustrating thing for me is that on a good day the mix seems for be about 15% insight and 85% bitterness. On a bad day its 100% biterness. I have said this before. If we got more of the brilliant analytic Hess and a lot less of hateful vitimized Hess, his arguements would get a lot more traction.
+1.
I actually have no arguement with much of what Hess says. It's just the delivery and the blaming everything on O when I seriously don't imagine a McCain administration doing things much differently. No matter who won the last election, they were going to get dumped on with a lot of E36 M3. It was a lame-duck presidency from the start. The GOP did a better job of seeing this and making sure they lost the election (bring out the Alaskian nut-case duece-card). I firmly believe if things don't appear they'll improve much, they'll make sure the lose the next election as well. You can already tell by how GOP members are running around saying how they are "thinking about thinking about running..." but don't seem very enthusaistic about the idea.
I do agree with him that it seems like the fox is not only in the hen house, but running it as well.
The tax idea has merit... getting it passed, however, would take a revolution.
z31maniac wrote: I'm just going to throw this out there, but WHY do you think companies keep their earnings overseas? Is it to avoid the high tax rates here? We should lower the tax rate to the point that it costs companies more to hire lawyers/accountants/etc to figure out ways to beat the tax than just pay it.
Well, for starters, despite all the complaining to the contrary, the tax rates in the US aren't actually that high compared with other developed (ie, 1st world countries). There are a bunch of successful countries with higher rates out there, partially because said higher rates actually encourage reinvestment, which is beneficial in the long term.
There's also the issue that companies everywhere are making substantial use of the infrastructure that someone's got to pay for.
Call me a cynic but even lowering the corporate tax rate to 0% - which, in an economy that is as dependent on consumer spending as the US is, would be a disaster IMHO - would still have the same companies looking for additional breaks. That's not a value judgment by the way, but sound business sense.
The official Corporate Tax Rate is 35%... what other countries have a higher rate?
Not attacking, i'm just feeling like i'm missing something big, here...
You'll need to log in to post.
