Choosing the lesser of two evils
Reader comment on: NYT on Repatriation Tax Holiday
Submitted by Al (Saudi Arabia), Jun 21, 2011 06:01
Only because the NYT does not mention the secondary benefits of money repatriation, it does not mean that the US economy would not have been much better off if all the money had all been repatriated legally paying the entire tax burden rather than allowing a cut.
If corporations, through crafty accounting and ingenious tricks evade taxes by bringing profits outside of the US, it is only fair that when they bring this money back they get taxed for it. Yet they strong-arm the government who is in dire need of tax revenue to have it their way or no way at all, using their economic might.
So we have a case of everybody is equal in front of the law, but corporations are more equal. Of course author, you own shares of Merck so that justifies this law bending for you, but does it justify not paying for infrastructure, education, and the like for people who don't have the opportunity to buy Merck shares and get nothing out of this corporate thievery?
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
The Future of Capitalism replies:
There's be more money for infrastructure, education and the like if the corporate tax rates were cut and some of the money came back here than if it stayed offshore indefinitely.
Other reader comments on this item
|Well... [51 words]||Jim||Jun 22, 2011 18:00|
|⇒ Choosing the lesser of two evils|
[w/response] [173 words]
|Al||Jun 21, 2011 06:01|
Comment on this item