HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Should capitalists that m...

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:05 AM

Should capitalists that move their jobs overseas lose their US citizenship?

And once they move their jobs overseas, they would zero taxes to this country.

Also, they would have no protection from our government or our military. They would be subject to the protection and taxes of the country where they move.

On top of that, they would get no special preference for bringing their products back to America to sell. They would take a back seat to any American company that could make the same product. America would no longer be the "free market" that they thought was sacred and no one could make any rules to enforce that it is a fair system?

Would that be unfair?

52 replies, 2423 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 52 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should capitalists that move their jobs overseas lose their US citizenship? (Original post)
kentuck Nov 2012 OP
msongs Nov 2012 #1
kentuck Nov 2012 #2
DietCoke Nov 2012 #3
kentuck Nov 2012 #4
DietCoke Nov 2012 #6
kentuck Nov 2012 #7
DietCoke Nov 2012 #9
kentuck Nov 2012 #14
DietCoke Nov 2012 #24
cali Nov 2012 #21
DietCoke Nov 2012 #25
seabeyond Nov 2012 #15
99Forever Nov 2012 #16
DietCoke Nov 2012 #26
uppityperson Nov 2012 #30
JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #31
DietCoke Nov 2012 #35
uppityperson Nov 2012 #39
99Forever Nov 2012 #33
DietCoke Nov 2012 #41
99Forever Nov 2012 #48
azurnoir Nov 2012 #5
DietCoke Nov 2012 #10
azurnoir Nov 2012 #12
azurnoir Nov 2012 #13
DietCoke Nov 2012 #27
AsahinaKimi Nov 2012 #28
DietCoke Nov 2012 #38
moondust Nov 2012 #8
no_hypocrisy Nov 2012 #11
Romulox Nov 2012 #17
KansDem Nov 2012 #22
Romulox Nov 2012 #23
KansDem Nov 2012 #47
Romulox Nov 2012 #50
99Forever Nov 2012 #18
cali Nov 2012 #19
gravity Nov 2012 #20
slackmaster Nov 2012 #29
kentuck Nov 2012 #32
glacierbay Nov 2012 #40
kentuck Nov 2012 #43
glacierbay Nov 2012 #44
slackmaster Nov 2012 #45
kentuck Nov 2012 #46
Cleita Nov 2012 #34
frostfern Nov 2012 #36
DonRedwood Nov 2012 #37
reformist2 Nov 2012 #42
HooptieWagon Nov 2012 #49
treestar Nov 2012 #51
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2012 #52

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:16 AM

1. nah, they go to washington DC and get worshipped nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:24 AM

2. What would that say about our political system?

Sounds like some room for improvement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:25 AM

3. Clarification

 

Just so I understand the argument completely and don't try to assume things, this is meant to accomplish what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:29 AM

4. It's a simple question.

Are these folks (capitalists) still considered good Americans and keep their citizenship and their tax breaks if they move their jobs overseas?

Would it accomplish anything?? I don't know. Would you have an opinion on the matter? Should they keep their citizenship? Should they keep their special tax breaks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:44 AM

6. Perhaps we should dig deeper....

 

Just wanted to know for sure before I responded, nothing wrong with making sure the question is understood correctly.

I think the better question to ask is why are they moving these jobs over seas? And is the answer to them moving jobs away more regulation or more freedom in the marketplace?

As far as tax breaks go, absolutely not! If a business can't support itself in the free market as it sits it shouldn't receive help from our tax dollars. There are far more important things our tax dollars can be used for besides subsidizing a failing business.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:02 AM

7. You ask?

"I think the better question to ask is why are they moving these jobs over seas? And is the answer to them moving jobs away more regulation or more freedom in the marketplace?"

Is that the only possibilities you can conjure up?

How about greed? Pure, unadulterated greed. Do you think that is possible? Do you think companies making a good profit in America have moved their jobs overseas simply because they can make an even better profit? That's just the way capitalism works? Have you thought of that??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:20 AM

9. Yes I have.

 

I understand how Capitalism works.

So the answer to the question is more regulation that is supported vastly by these corporations because they understand that they and only they can afford the legal fees to stay in regulation?

Why not give them what they don't want, a true free marketplace where competition is allowed to grow and not squashed by other companies that can afford the lobbying to support these regulations.

Did you think of that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:42 AM

14. Yes. It doesn't work.

You would probably support more tax cuts for these God-chosen "job-creators" also? History is an excellent teacher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:18 PM

24. God chosen?

 

No, everyone deserves the same opportunity to succeed in any business or any industry, which is exactly why no business should receive government support in any way. Again our tax dollars are way better used for the people than against the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:04 AM

21. ridiculous. on so very many levels.

The claim that corporations "vastly support more regulation" is utter nonsense. There is exactly no evidence for that claim and a ton of evidence against it: Who supports deregulation through lobbyists? Why yes, that would be the corporate world.

Making shit up, is not a winning argument, sweetums.

And unfettered capitalism is a disaster. There could hardly be more evidence of that.

Now go back to whatever nasty bridge you normally inhabit. Please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:34 PM

25. Perhaps its a bridge I built myself.....

 

I think your lying to yourself if you don't think our elected officials are in the the pocket of these major corporations, which is the problem.

So your answer against my claim is to just claim the opposite and say that I'm making it up, very compelling.

So what is the economic plan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:44 AM

15. it is to pay $2 a day for a 14 hour work day, by other human beings that are desperate. we KNOW

the why.

greed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:55 AM

16. Ahh yes...

... the same old "over regulated" meme....


I smell Teabags and bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:37 PM

26. Teabags?????

 

I'm going to assume you are trying to say I am a Tea Party member..... Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Thanks I needed that good laugh this morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:48 PM

30. Who did you support in the election? Who would you support now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:52 PM

31. +1000000000

I'd like to know who this 8 post person voted for - take it to the next level. Not supported - VOTED for! I smell Freepturds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:03 PM

35. Live and let live.....

 

Both options in the 2 party system made me quite upset, so I didn't support either of them. Perhaps New Mexico has the answer I am looking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:10 PM

39. You supported Gary Johnson, Libertarian from New Mexico. Got it. thanks for clarifying.

Both options in the 2 party system made me quite upset, so I didn't support either of them. Perhaps New Mexico has the answer I am looking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:54 PM

33. When you start posting Teabagger memes...

... 8 posts into a fresh account, what do you expect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:12 PM

41. Differences.....

 

Do you not think certain parts every political belief have things in common? Just because I believe in a free marketplace doesn't mean I am against the rights of women and LGBT and force my religious beliefs on others. Hell you probably think I'm a Republican as well huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:15 PM

48. I think your motives and ...

... allegiances are unclear. Time will tell.


Edit:Whoops, seems time already did tell. Hope you enjoyed your brief stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:37 AM

5. NO IMO we should make moveing jobs overseas unprofitable

that can easily be done by making them pay by levying a tax on them for each and every person who loses their job and perhaps those who might have been future employees, they do it for profit and the way to stop it is to make it very unprofitable



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:45 AM

10. And the economy?

 

So if the price of all goods imported skyrockets what happens to our economy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:30 AM

12. ah so moving jobs overseas is good for the economy I see

must keep profit margins up to keep costs down, where have I heard that before..............?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:33 AM

13. why yes of course if we don't keep costs low and profits high

for the job creators, why it'll all go to hell , so let's move those jobs overseas, keep costs down profits up

seems I've this all before someplace, let me think........????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:43 PM

27. Job creators

 

Do you really think major corporations are the main job creators? They're merely just one business in a industry that happens to receive large tax breaks from there buddies in DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DietCoke (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:44 PM

28. No one said..so I will..

Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AsahinaKimi (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:06 PM

38. Thank you

 

Appreciate the warm welcome <-------- This bouncing dude is pretty cool BTW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:14 AM

8. Haven't they done serious damage to the U.S. economy?

Do they qualify as "enemies of the state"?

Some would probably say "Fuck You" and move to Switzerland or someplace that welcomes their money with open arms. Maybe some have already made threats of a mass migration of billions to other countries if the government interferes with their "free market." Hell, a lot of fat cat money is already deposited in offshore accounts just to avoid taxes.

I think the French and Russian revolutions demonstrated that the "rules of engagement" are subject to change. Maybe it's just a question of how change comes about.

Some kind of re-importation tax might be enough to discourage offshoring jobs by making it unprofitable, i.e. "If you want to sell it here you'll have to build it here." That would still allow exporting (and importing necessary foreign) goods and services. Along those lines Sen. Schumer a few years ago proposed a tax on U.S. company (banks) customer service calls that are serviced overseas (India) in an effort to discourage offshoring of call centers. I don't know whatever happened to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:05 AM

11. Not like that. Corporations should lose their corporate charters,

that is, lose their rights as American corporations and be considered foreign entities AND then be heavily tariffed as well as losing their tax breaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:56 AM

17. Al Gore took us taxpayer money to build cars overseas. Isn't he our "hero"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:32 AM

22. Yes, he's our "hero."

From the report--

With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.

Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department's $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the company's manufacturing jobs are still limited to the assembly of the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car in Finland.

"There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," the car company's founder and namesake told ABC News. "They don't exist here."

Henrik Fisker said the U.S. money has been spent on engineering and design work that stayed in the U.S., not on the 500 manufacturing jobs that went to a rural Finnish firm, Valmet Automotive.

"We're not in the business of failing; we're in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business," Fisker said. "That's why we went to Finland."


The sad fact remains that the manufacture of electric cars should have begun in this country a lot sooner than now. Peak oil and global warming was known about at least since the 1950s:

1956:
Hubbert Peak Oil theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

1958:


And, of course, the Bush Family pals and business partners, the Saudis, turned off the oil spigot in the early 1970s, causing uncertainty as well as an increase in oil prices and gas lines.

Even GM toyed with the idea of manufacturing electric cars in the 1990s. The result was a product that Americans wanted. There were lists of anxious consumers would wanted one of Roger Smith's electric cars:

"Who Killed the Electric Car" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

Unfortunately, he had them all destroyed.

We were warned, repeatedly, what would happen if we remained dependent on oil. We should have known what this all would lead to. Unfortunately, we opted for the gas-guzzling SUV and Hummer.

So if the electric car needs to be made in a foreign country, so be it. We had our chance and we blew it. Why? I don't know. Greed? Someone needs to ask the automobile CEOs. Also ask the fossil fuels CEOs.

Perhaps if Al Gore had taken his rightful place as POTUS, there might be a booming electric-car industry in this country today. But he was denied his chance and the presidency was given to W. Need I say more?

But, as the "news" report indicates, the overall plan included the creation of 1,000s of jobs in America. And an automobile for the future. We'll see.

But I do applaud ABC with its attempt at "hard-hitting investigative journalism."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:36 AM

23. LOL. EVERY outsourcer claims the work "couldn't be done (CHEAPLY ENOUGH!!!!) in the US"

It's a lame excuse from YET ANOTHER outsourcer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:26 PM

47. I didn't see the term "cheaply enough" in the article.

But considering the opposition to electric cars by corporatists and their minions in Congress for the past several decades, it might have been determined better to begin manufacturing in a foreign land. At least Gore didn't close down a factory in the US already making electric cars and transfer the jobs to China.

Let's see what becomes of this. As I said in my previous post, manufacturing of electric automobiles should have begun in this country long before now...

On edit: Here is this comment from your article:

This story is very misleading. Fisker Automotive has created hundreds of design and engineering jobs at their southern California headquarters and the vast majority of their funding (more than $1B) has come from private equity financing. What's lost in this politically motivated sensationalism is the fact that Fisker is doing something Americans should be proud of by leading the auto industry in a new direction with a bold and innovative idea.

Perhaps ABC might "investigate" this part of the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:36 AM

50. The "cheap" part was somewhat implied by the gov't handout they took, no? If their outsourcing model

was so gosh-darned successful, why does the US taxpayer need to fund it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:58 AM

18. A much simpler way.

Of course end ALL tax breaks for these traitors. And then tariffs that level the playing field, with the income from those tariffs going to rebuild infrastructure and education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:59 AM

19. How on earth would that be Constitutional?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:59 AM

20. Billionaires will love that

because they don't have to pay taxes to the US anymore. The US is one of the only countries that taxes its citizens overseas income so it will create a huge loophole exploited by the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:45 PM

29. Nothing in the Constitution provides the government with the power to do that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:52 PM

32. The Constitution....

...gives the Congress the power to pass whatever law they wish. They are under no Constitutional constraints.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:11 PM

40. Whaaaaaaaaa"

 

You seriously believe that the congress is under no Constitutional constraits? They have to follow the Constitution also, it is the supreme law of the land, and do you really think that the SCOTUS, liberal or conservative, would go along with your proposal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:14 PM

43. Sorry for the misunderstanding...

They have no constitutional constraints in regards to passing laws about how our country trades with other countries and what tariffs we might put on them or even if we decide to go to war with those countries. The Congress makes the laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:21 PM

44. Got it

 

but the SCOTUS would quickly rule unconstitutional any law that would strip citizenship from a business owner just because they moved their business overseas, and I would have to agree with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:48 PM

45. We'd be in deep shit if we had a Congress that started creating ways to deport citizens...

 

...for lawful economic activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:54 PM

46. The Congress can define whether or not it is "lawful economic activity".

It is not written in stone that businesses can do whatever they want, even if it might be against the national interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:00 PM

34. I really, really think that global corporations should not be allowed to set up shop in the USA

even though maybe they had their roots in America like AT & T. Those companies that are incorporating in tax haven places and putting their money in banks overseas should be declared non-USA based companies. That really is what's happening. Not only does it take away jobs but tax revenues cause it's easy for them to hide profits if they are incorporated in other countries. We could do a lot by insisting that our corporations be solely incorporated in one of the American states. We could do business with foreign companies by treaty but they shouldn't be allowed in here mining our national resources like BP and their footprint on our landscape should be minimal. I don't give a crap that Toyota has plants in America. We should be producing American cars in those plants instead and selling them overseas as well as here.

If we had a law stating that stores like Wal-Mart had to keep 60% of their stock with goods made in America, and if we put tariffs on cheap imports bring the retail price to what American made goods would cost, we could accomplish this. It was what we did after WWII and it worked. We could do it again. Our incorporation laws were very protective of our American industries then but also restrictive to keep them in line.

Laissez faire economic policies were one of the main reasons behind the French Revolution and will cause one here in the future if we don't wake up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:04 PM

36. There's a huge hole in the neo-liberal argument that "free trade" is always "good for everyone".

The problem they refuse to acknowledge is that in their ideal "free market" model there must be completely free and open competition between all sellers, INCLUDING THOSE WHO SELL THEIR LABOR. Think of it this way: Would Chinese or Indian workers accept lower pay for the exact same work as their American counterparts if they could freely immigrate anywhere in the world? Fuck no! The restriction on the mobility of labor imposed by sovereign nations is a "market inefficiency" ( to use the economic jargon of neoclassical "free market" ideology). Free trade cannot be "pereto optimal" unless we also allow 100% free immigration and dissolve national sovereignty completely.

It's so sad that even progressive politicians have bought into the "free trade is good for everyone" nonsense because they believed all the so-called "economic experts". I just cannot believe the idiocy of the world we live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:05 PM

37. Their products should face a GIGANTIC "ENTRY TAX"

that more than makes up for the difference in chinese wages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:13 PM

42. No, but congressmen who help them move those jobs should lose theirs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:21 PM

49. No they shouldn't lose citizenship.

But foreign labor costs shouldn't be a deduction in profit/loss calculations when determining corporate taxes owed. And any corporation that relocates HQ offshore to dodge taxes should be de-listed from NYSE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:07 AM

51. They wouldn't care

LIke that guy who gave his up over taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:19 AM

52. Not as long as the US government and state governments seek to induce multinational corporations...

to open facilities in the USA, no. This would be a very bad and frankly stupid idea. You might as well say "the USA no longer wishes to participate in the global economy, sorry".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread