RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | How Corporate America Parks Profits Overseas, Avoiding Billions in Taxes Print
Friday, 29 August 2014 13:30

Goodman writes: "As Burger King heads north for Canada's lower corporate tax rate, we speak to Rolling Stone contributing editor Tim Dickinson about his new article, 'The Biggest Tax Scam Ever.'"

(photo: file)
(photo: file)


How Corporate America Parks Profits Overseas, Avoiding Billions in Taxes

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!

29 August 14

 

s Burger King heads north for Canada’s lower corporate tax rate, we speak to Rolling Stone contributing editor Tim Dickinson about his new article, "The Biggest Tax Scam Ever." Dickinson reports on how top U.S. companies are avoiding hundreds of billions of dollars by parking their profits abroad — and still receiving more congressionally approved incentives. Dickinson writes: "Top offenders include giants from high-tech (Microsoft, $76 billion); Big Pharma (Pfizer, $69 billion); Big Oil (Exxon­Mobil, $47 billion); investment banks (Goldman Sachs, $22 billion); Big Tobacco (Philip Morris, $20 billion); discount retailers (Wal-Mart, $19 billion); fast-food chains (McDonald’s, $16 billion) – even heavy machinery (Caterpillar, $17 billion). General Electric has $110 billion stashed offshore, and enjoys an effective tax rate of 4 percent – 31 points lower than its statutory obligation to the IRS."

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, some are calling for a boycott of Burger King because of the merger. Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio issued a statement that, quote, "Burger King’s decision to abandon the United States means consumers should turn to Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers or White Castle sliders. ... Burger King has always said 'Have it Your Way.' Well, my way is to support two Ohio companies that haven’t abandoned their country or customers," the senator said. Both Wendy’s and White Castle are based in Ohio. Brown also called for the creation of a global minimum tax to eliminate incentives for companies to move. And I would like Tim Dickinson to comment on this. Tim Dickinson has written extensively about these kinds of deals and others for Rolling Stone, where he’s a contributing editor. Talk about this and then what you call the "biggest tax scam ever," Tim.

TIM DICKINSON: Well, so the inversion trend is just the tip of a very destructive iceberg that’s seen the hollowing out of our corporate tax base. And so, the inversions, you know, is just basically a legal scam that lets a company technically offshore itself for a lower tax rate. And it goes sort of hat in hand with companies shipping massive quantities of corporate profits overseas through sort of elaborate accounting schemes. And while it’s overseas, it sits there tax-free, accumulates tax-free kind of like a 401(k) does. And so, right now there’s about $2 trillion in corporate profits that are stockpiled overseas, on which the U.S. government is technically owed something like half a trillion dollars. So, at the same time that we’re cutting food stamps, that we’re cutting home heating aid to the elderly, you know, there’s literally a jackpot of half a trillion dollars that politicians on both sides of the aisle just won’t go after, because there’s just an imbalance of power there. The corporate power has grown much greater than state power in this case.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Tim Dickinson, one thing that many of these companies that are parking their profits overseas keep quietly lobbying for is amnesty, right? They want a tax amnesty, where the government would lower their taxes temporarily, so they could bring this money back. Could you talk about that and who in Congress champions that?

TIM DICKINSON: Well, I mean, it’s like a bailout, basically. It’s a bailout on the tax bill. And this was done in the Bush administration in 2004. The nominal U.S. tax rate, nobody really pays it, but the nominal rate is 35 percent. And in the Bush era, corporations were allowed to bring their money home at a rate of five-and-a-quarter percent, 5.25 percent, so basically 30 points shaved off of the tax rate. And so, politicians in both parties really kind of are attracted to this idea. There are few folks who have raised enough of a stink about it that it hasn’t happened. But both really—literally, both sides of the aisle—most recently, Harry Reid and Rand Paul were shopping a bill that would allow corporations to bring cash home at a low rate of 9.5 percent; Dave Camp, the chief tax writer in the House, Republican side, as low as 3.25 percent, I believe; and then on the Senate side, Ron Wyden’s bill would again allow a 5.25 percent tax holiday, is what the jargon is.

AMY GOODMAN: So, James?

JAMES HENRY: I was just going to say, the 2004 experiment with this idea is illustrative. I mean, about a third of the benefits from that went to one company, Pfizer, and they proceeded to lay off their employees. It produced no jobs. Essentially, management got rich, because they used the money for management buyouts and for shareholder share repurchases. So it’s a good example of how bad this idea is.

AMY GOODMAN: Tim Dickinson, you write about Google. You write about the company that makes Viagra. You write about Apple. Tell us about what they take advantage of.

TIM DICKINSON: Well, so, there are a myriad tax schemes by which U.S. profits are funneled out of the country in ways that make them look like costs. So, to take Pfizer, for example, on Viagra, they had transferred at a very early stage of drug development the economic rights to the intellectual property behind Viagra to a shell company in Liechtenstein, which is a tax haven in Europe. And so, on every sale of the drug here, the Liechtenstein company would charge a very steep royalty. And so, the American company would appear to not only not make any profit on those sales, but actually be creating a business loss here in America, because they had to pay this business expense to its own subsidiary. And so, you’re lowering the tax bill on the American side, even as you’re increasing the profits on the Liechtenstein side. So, it’s this incredible racket, basically.

And it appears to be legal. This is not, you know, something that has been cracked down on by Congress. But the white-shoe accountants have figured out a way to sort of disappear this money and put it overseas. And I should mention that the U.S. has a global system of taxation, so that corporate profits around the world from an American-based multinational are supposed to be taxed. And that reflects the idea that the U.S. Navy secures shipping lanes, that our courts protect intellectual property across the world. And this has been practiced for more than a century, Supreme Court-approved since 1924. So this is not a new idea. But there’s sort of an incredible amount of accounting innovation that has gone into figuring out how to make profits disappear and in fact appear as losses in the United States, as the cash piles up in foreign subsidiaries, which in turn bank their money right back here in the United States. And then, when the CEOs need to use that money here in the United States, there’s something called "synthetic cash repatriation," where they’re able to use the same sort of accounting tricks either through short-term revolving loans or through bond offerings here in the United States, as Apple has done. And so, the cash can sort of—the power of the cash can reappear here in the United States. And the only one cut out of the loop is Uncle Sam, who’s supposed to get, you know, 35 percent the moment the money returns to the country.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, James Henry, I’m curious why there isn’t a greater public outcry over this. You essentially have American companies who take advantage of the protections that the American government provides—the patent laws, the intellectual property laws, as you say, the military that assures international commerce goes on—they take advantage of all the benefits of the government, but then they shift their money overseas where they don’t have to pay taxes to finance the very government that provides them that protection.

JAMES HENRY: Well, that’s exactly right. And small business is not benefiting from all these tax games that multinationals are able to play, and they’re having to compete with these companies here. You know, it really has been a growing movement, I think, in the tax justice movement. We made a film called We’re Not Broke, which is on Netflix and is about this very issue of corporate tax dodging, you know, the outrageous behavior of these companies offshoring their intellectual property, that was paid for by U.S. R&D subsidies here, to places like Ireland and Bermuda, where they have no research labs, and then paying themselves royalties tax-free. You know, the outrages are clear. The issue is, these are very powerful lobbies. The corporate tax lobby employs 1,800 tax lobbyists full-time in Washington working on these issues, night and day. I mean, I assume they take time off for Burger King once in a while. But the issue is, you know, we’re just outgunned on the level of the substance and the—you know, the—

AMY GOODMAN: So it’s three per every legislator in Washington, Congress and senators.

JAMES HENRY: Absolutely. And, you know, they—

AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, much more.

JAMES HENRY: I mean, this lobby has actually grown in power as the tax rates have actually fallen since the 1980s. I mean, we now have cut corporate tax rates in the United States roughly in half. There’s a race to the bottom worldwide. And this just has to be seen as part of that global phenomenon. So, if the United States persists in cutting its tax rates, it’s going to have terrible impact on other countries, developing countries in particular. If there’s no corporate income tax in the United States, there’s no tax credit for the taxes that American companies pay abroad, and so those countries will be forced to reduce their tax rates, as well. So, you know, this is not just about inversions. It’s part of a growing, I think, very radical movement on the right to essentially get rid of the corporate income tax.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, last point. I asked you about Google and Apple, Tim Dickinson. If you could just explain what they do, as we wrap up?

TIM DICKINSON: So, Apple has this amazing deal, where they’ve got essentially a shadow company in Ireland. And it’s incorporated in Ireland, but for Irish purposes, it’s an American company, and for American purposes, it’s an Irish company. And so you end up with this black hole of taxation where in fact this Apple subsidiary files a tax return to no government in the world. And so, it can use all kinds of accounting tricks to funnel money to this company, and they sit there essentially absolutely untaxed. Just there’s no tax return. And so you have billions of dollars sitting there. And again, when Apple needs billions of dollars to fund its American operations, it has bond offerings, and its cost of borrowing here in the United States is incredibly low. Just investors are virtually paying Apple to raise this money, because it’s secured by these massive piles of cash, technically abroad, although they’re actually banked reportedly in Manhattan. And so, you know, I believe that this is a phenomenon—really, I mean, we talk about it as a right-wing phenomenon, but it has infected both parties, that there is no meaningful party out there that is trying to address this. In fact, both parties now agree that there should be a—we should shave 10 percentage points off the tax rate, get the American corporate tax rate down to 25 percent. That’s a race to the bottom that America can’t win. There’s no way to run a global superpower and compete with low-tax nations like Ireland. But I just need to emphasize that this is truly a bipartisan scenario. Both parties are pushing corporate tax holidays. Both parties are pushing to lower the corporate rate, even though the rate that—effective rate that companies pay here on their profits is actually, in many cases, lower than the efective rate they pay in other countries.

AMY GOODMAN: Tim Dickinson, we want to thank you for being with us, covering national affairs for Rolling Stone, where he’s contributing editor. We’ll link to your latest piece, which is called "The Biggest Tax Scam Ever," speaking to us from Portland, Oregon. And thanks so much to James Henry, the former chief economist for McKinsey & Company, lawyer and senior adviser with the Tax Justice Network.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The Fall of France Print
Friday, 29 August 2014 12:21

Krugman writes: "France isn't Greece; it isn't even Italy. But it is letting itself be bullied as if it were a basket case."

Paul Krugman. (photo: NYT)
Paul Krugman. (photo: NYT)


The Fall of France

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

29 August 14

 

rançois Hollande, the president of France since 2012, coulda been a contender. He was elected on a promise to turn away from the austerity policies that killed Europe’s brief, inadequate economic recovery. Since the intellectual justification for these policies was weak and would soon collapse, he could have led a bloc of nations demanding a change of course. But it was not to be. Once in office, Mr. Hollande promptly folded, giving in completely to demands for even more austerity.

Let it not be said, however, that he is entirely spineless. Earlier this week, he took decisive action, but not, alas, on economic policy, although the disastrous consequences of European austerity grow more obvious with each passing month, and even Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, is calling for a change of course. No, all Mr. Hollande’s force was focused on purging members of his government daring to question his subservience to Berlin and Brussels.

It’s a remarkable spectacle. To fully appreciate it, however, you need to understand two things. First, Europe, as a whole, is in deep trouble. Second, however, within that overall pattern of disaster, France’s performance is much better than you would guess from news reports. France isn’t Greece; it isn’t even Italy. But it is letting itself be bullied as if it were a basket case.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Most Police Don't Live in the Cities They Serve Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30004"><span class="small">Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight</span></a>   
Thursday, 28 August 2014 13:58

Silver writes: "In Ferguson, Missouri, where protests continue following the shooting of a teenager by a police officer this month, more than two-thirds of the civilian population is black. Only 11 percent of the police force is."

Police in Ferguson. (photo: Getty Images)
Police in Ferguson. (photo: Getty Images)


Most Police Don't Live in the Cities They Serve

By Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight

28 August 14

 

n Ferguson, Missouri, where protests continue following the shooting of a teenager by a police officer this month, more than two-thirds of the civilian population is black. Only 11 percent of the police force is. The racial disparity is troubling enough on its own, but it’s also suggestive of another type of misrepresentation. Given Ferguson’s racial gap, it’s likely that many of its police officers live outside city limits.

If so, Ferguson would have something in common with most major American cities. In about two-thirds of the U.S. cities with the largest police forces, the majority of police officers commute to work from another town.

This statistic is intimately tied to the diversity of the police force: Black and Hispanic officers are considerably more likely to reside in the cities they police than white ones. In New York, for example, 62 percent of the police force resides within the five boroughs — a comparatively high figure. But there’s a stark racial divide. Seventy-seven percent of black New York police officers live in the city, and 76 percent of Hispanic ones do, but the same is true for only 45 percent of white officers.

This data comes from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Census Bureau, which together provide detail on the racial composition of government workers in large American cities. We were alerted to the data set by a Washington Post analysis of the racial demographics of each city’s police force. The census data also includes detail on how many police officers live in the cities where they serve.

On average, among the 75 U.S. cities with the largest police forces, 60 percent of police officers reside outside the city limits. (These figures exclude Honolulu, for which detailed data on residency was not available.) But the share varies radically from city to city. In Chicago, 88 percent of police officers live within the city boundaries — and in Philadelphia, 84 percent do. But only 23 percent do so in Los Angeles. Just 12 percent of Washington police live in the District — and only 7 percent of officers in Miami live within city limits.

These differences reflect a combination of three major factors: a city’s racial composition, whether it has a residency requirement for police and its geography.

On average among the 75 cities, 49 percent of black police officers and 47 percent of Hispanic officers live within the city limits. But just 35 percent of white police officers do. The disparity is starkest in cities with largely black populations. In Detroit, for example, 57 percent of black police officers live in the city but just 8 percent of white ones do. Memphis, Tennessee; Baltimore; Birmingham, Alabama; and Jackson, Mississippi — also majority black — likewise have large racial gaps in where their police officers live.

Cities may also vary in their residency requirements — for example, Los Angeles doesn’t require police to live in the city; Philadelphia used to require that its officers live within the city boundaries. Furthermore, such regulations are enforced to varying degrees. Whereas Boston ostensibly has a residency requirement for police, for example, it’s routinely flouted — and the Census Bureau data suggests that about half of Boston’s police officers live outside the city.

Geography also plays some role. Jacksonville, Florida, has more than 80 percent of its police officers living within the city limits. That may reflect its sprawling boundaries; the city proper has an unusually high share of the metro area’s population. By contrast, the city of Atlanta, which is small compared with metro Atlanta’s population, has just 14 percent of its police force living in town.

 

The city of St. Louis, near Ferguson, has a residency requirement with an out clause. There, police are allowed to move outside the city after seven years on the force. White police officers have been more likely to take advantage of the provision; 46 percent of them live outside St. Louis, whereas 32 percent of its black ones do.

There isn’t detailed data available on Ferguson, whose population is too small to have required detailed reporting to the EEOC. But in our effort to spot-check the census data, we discovered that many communities with a strict police residency requirement have an active debate about whether to relax the requirement — while nearly every town without one is arguing about whether to impose one. Ferguson is no outlier in this regard, but the events there may shape the debates for years to come.

Further details on these 75 cities are included in the searchable table below (asterisks mean there were fewer than 100 officers in the category) and can be found on GitHub.

NOTE TO READERS (Aug. 21, 1:39 p.m.): The Census Bureau numbers we are using are potentially going to differ from other counts for three reasons:

  1. The census category for police officers also includes sheriffs, transit police and others who might not be under the same jurisdiction as a city’s police department proper. The census category won’t include private security officers.
  2. The census data is estimated from 2006 to 2010; police forces may have changed in size since then.
  3. There is always a margin of error in census numbers; they are estimates, not complete counts.

CORRECTION (Aug. 20, 5:07 p.m.): A previous version of this article said Philadelphia police officers are currently required to live within city limits. They are not.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | It Is Never About Race: A Continuing Series Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Thursday, 28 August 2014 13:24

Pierce writes: "And there still will be people who will claim not to "understand" why black people dread the approach of the police."

(photo: unknown)
(photo: unknown)


It Is Never About Race: A Continuing Series

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

28 August 14

 

nd there still will be people who will claim not to "understand" w hy black people dread the approach of the police.

Beavercreek police say they shot and killed Crawford because he was waving the BB gun and didn't drop it when commanded by police, according to local media accounts. Lawyers for the Crawford family and Crawford's father have viewed 5 to 6 minutes of surveillance video of the shooting. The lawyers said at a news conference on Tuesday that Crawford was talking on a cell phone and had picked up the gun off a shelf. "He was doing nothing more, nothing less than just shopping," attorney Michael Wright said.

First of all, what white person gets frightened enough in a WalMart to call a cop just because a black man has a pellet gun?

Everybody, because it's not about race because it's never about race.

Also, what cop gets frightened enough in a WalMart to draw down just because a black man has a pellet gun?

Most of them, because it's not about race because it's never about race.

Also what cop shoots to kill in a WalMart because a black man is holding a pellet gun?

This one, because it's not about race because it's never about race.

And it seems like the local cops are following the Chief Tom Jackson Protocol for selective leaking, having allowed bits and pieces of a surveillance video to drip out, creating the bones of a narrative in which Crawford was asking for it because he was a black person in the WalMart and people got scared of him.

The family of Crawford viewed the video this week that cameras captured inside the Walmart that night. The store has more than 200 security cameras on the premises of its Beavercreek store. AG Dewine says they saw the video "pertinent to the family". The entire video is part of the ongoing investigation. It has not been released to the media.

Because it's never about race. Ever.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Elizabeth Warren Finally Speaks on Israel/Gaza, Sounds Like Netanyahu Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29455"><span class="small">Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept</span></a>   
Thursday, 28 August 2014 12:10

Greenwald writes: "But Warren steadfastly defended her 'pro-Israel' vote, invoking the politician's platitude: 'We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.'"

Elizabeth Warren. (photo: AP)
Elizabeth Warren. (photo: AP)


Elizabeth Warren Finally Speaks on Israel/Gaza, Sounds Like Netanyahu

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

28 August 14

 

he last time Elizabeth Warren was asked about her views on the Israeli attack on Gaza – on July 17 – she, as Rania Khalek put it, “literally ran away” without answering. But last week, the liberal Senator appeared for one of her regularly scheduled “office hours” with her Massachusetts constituents, this one in Hyannis, and, as a local paper reported, she had nowhere to run.

One voter who identified himself as a Warren supporter, John Bangert, stood up and objected to her recent vote, in the middle of the horrific attack on Gaza, to send yet another $225 million of American taxpayer money to Israel for its “Iron Dome” system. Banger told his Senator: “We are disagreeing with Israel using their guns against innocents. It’s true in Ferguson, Missouri, and it’s true in Israel . . .  The vote was wrong, I believe.” To crowd applause, Bangert told Warren that the money “could have been spent on infrastructure or helping immigrants fleeing Central America.”

But Warren steadfastly defended her “pro-Israel” vote, invoking the politician’s platitude: “We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.” According to the account in the Cape Cod Times by reporter C. Ryan Barber, flagged by Zaid Jilani, Warren was also asked about her Israel position by other voters who were at the gathering, and she went on to explain:

“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right. America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”

Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel “indiscriminately,” but with the Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have “not had the terrorist effect Hamas hoped for.” When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel’s attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the “last thing Israel wants.”

“But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,” Warren said, drawing applause.

Warren even rejected a different voter’s suggestion that the U.S. force Israel to at least cease building illegal settlements by withholding further aid: “Noreen Thompsen, of Eastham, proposed that Israel should be prevented from building any more settlements as a condition of future U.S. funding, but Warren said, ‘I think there’s a question of whether we should go that far.’”

In her defense, Warren has long been clear that this is what she would do. Her Senate campaign website still contains statements such as “it is a moral imperative to support and defend Israel” and ”as a United States Senator, I will work to ensure Israel’s security and success.”

During her time in the national spotlight, Warren has focused overwhelmingly on domestic issues, rarely venturing into foreign policy discussions. Many of those domestic views, particularly her strident-for-D.C. opposition to banks, have been admirable, elevating her to hero status for many progressives.

But when Warren has spoken on national security, she has invariably spouted warmed-over, banal Democratic hawk tripe of the kind that she just recited about Israel and Gaza. During her Senate campaign, for instance, she issued wildly militaristic – and in some cases clearly false – statements about Iran and its nuclear program that would have been comfortable on the pages of The Weekly Standard.

Even as conservative Democratic Senate candidates from red states such as Nebraska’s Bob Kerrey were vehemently condemning the threat of war against Iran during their campaigns, Warren was claiming (contrary to the U.S. Government’s own assessment) that “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons”, adding: “I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well.” Those claims about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons remained her position even after she was told that they squarely contradict the U.S. intelligence community’s clear assessment of Iran’s actions.

In related news, the British newspaper The Telegraph yesterday published the names of all 504 children who were killed in Gaza over the last 50 days by Israel. In the last week, Israel deliberately destroyed an entire large residential apartment building after giving its residents less than an hour to vacate, leaving more than 40 families homeless, and also destroyed a seven-story office building and two-story shopping center (the video of the apartment building destruction is online and ugly to watch).

Echoing Benjamin Nentayahu (and Hillary Clinton), Elizabeth Warren’s clear position is that Israel bears none of the blame for any of this. Or, to use her words, “when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself.” Such carnage is the ”last thing Israel wants.” The last thing. That, ladies and gentlemen, is your inspiring left-wing icon of the Democratic Party.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 Next > End >>

Page 2740 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN