Cut taxes to all businesses that don't outsource and raise them for companies that do.

[L0oniX]

O sure the GOP repukes will bitch that once again the Dems are raising taxes but do you want to keep our jobs here? Don't like it when you lose your job because your company has outsourced it? I think taxing these companies that outsource jobs is a good way to keep jobs here which we desperately needed right now. What do you think?

[Le Taz Hot]

1. I've been saying this for years.

It seems so logical, but NOOOOOO, lets give "stimulus" checks to the ones who least deserve it.

[leveymg]

2. Couldn't be framed that way - violation of WTO rules. However, it could be

done legally as a "retraining" fee imposed on large multinational companies that lay off U.S. workers. practically all large companies are multinationals, so this action wouldn't be discriminatory.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Or no govt. contracts for offshoring companies.

Just watch the scramble.

[leveymg]

9. Again, that would probably be a violation of WTO rules against preferential treatment

But, if these same multinationals had to pony up say, a $25,000 retraining fee for each U.S. worker they lay-off, if they couldn't show an offsetting layoff abroad, that would effectively put an end to the practice.

[Lasher]

13. What would you think about the US getting out of the WTO?

Or at least changing some of these agreements?

[leveymg]

17. Please, see my comment below. Yes, there is room for some

adjustment of the rules in case of domestic economic crisis, even within the existing regime. We need to look seriously at what can be done, and then expand these safeguards, if need be.

[L0oniX]

32. I'm all for getting out of the WTO. I'd like to see what would happen because if we ...

are all out of a job, who gives a damn about the WTO? Is the WTO going to get us jobs? NO ...unless we all move to China.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. The WTO loves you.

That's the word on the street.

[L0oniX]

8. Retraining education tax ...that would work. I am sure some fed lawyers could come up with something

...to bypass the WTO. Are we really that obligated to the WTO that we should allow our jobs to be outsourced on such a massive scale as we see here?

[leveymg]

12. We created the WTO to benefit U.S.-based multinationals.

In the mid-1990s, it seemed to make enormous sense to get every country in the world to agree to these trading rules.

The world has changed.

[L0oniX]

19. The world can change again so long as it is fare this time.

The WTO obviously is not saving our jobs. If we are all out of work why would we need the WTO?

[leveymg]

21. Yes, fair trade this time.

Not free trade fundamentalism, which is sort of a religion to some economists and businessmen.

[MikeNearMcChord]

11. How many divisions does the WTO have?

Paraphrasing a Joseph Stalin quote, but still why should we really care about the WTO? Hell China doesn't seem to care what the WTO thinks.

[leveymg]

14. If the US withdrew from the WTO, everyone else would retaliate and impose tariffs on US goods

That probably wouldn't work out well. So, we need to find other ways to keep jobs here.

[L0oniX]

16. What US goods?

[leveymg]

20. The majority of the world's multinationals are headquartered in the US

Everything from cars to computer chips. The problem is, they just don't build them here anymore. So, we need to deal -- severely, if need be, just as the FDR and Truman Administrations did -- with upper management of the multinationals, while avoiding a trade war with other countries.

[L0oniX]

33. You mean the multinationals that have off shore accounts to avoid paying taxes?

[leveymg]

51. That problem needs to be addressed with tightening of Treasury enforcement and leg irons

for corporate tax evaders.

[pampango]

28. US is the third largest exporting country in the world, behind Germany and China.

Those are the "goods" (and the workers who produce them) who would be hurt by retaliation.

[L0oniX]

30. What do we export except jobs? Nothing comes to mind.

[pampango]

43. Not sure other than airplanes, heavy equipment, and food. Don't know what Germany exports either,

but they are ahead of us and China is number 2. Everybody complains about the "cheap" stuff from China. Maybe Germany and the US export the "expensive" stuff. ;)

[cabluedem]

44. US Dollars, thats what, right along with our jobs.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Asian countries have large tariffs on US imports already.

Specifically automobiles. Could you explain the seeming double standard?

[L0oniX]

34. Not to mention the USD to Euro exchange which directly affects my business.

[cabluedem]

45. Awful quiet here now. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. So far. nt

[leveymg]

52. Will need to research that, Not avoiding a response.

My area of expertise is Trade in Services (GATS, General Agreement on Trade in Services) not GATTS (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs).

I don't disagree with most of what people are saying around here, but I'm just trying to point out that there aren't many easy solutions to trade issues that don't involve significant unintended costs and consequences.

If it were easy to restore U.S. jobs simply by imposing higher taxes on offshoring companies, that would have been done, already.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. I need to research it , too. I'd honestly like to know.

If we're being threatened with a WTO sanction for protectionism, how does France subsidize Airbus? Or Japan Toyota? Or Yugoslavia the Yugo?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. That would be both compromise with the GOP as well as calling their bluff.

[shaniqua6392]

4. I remember Obama mentioning that during the primaries.

I wish they would put that in the stimulus package. They are pushing it through too fast when they have a prime opportunity to get more out of it by inserting ideas such as yours.

[patrice]

5. Common Sense!

[L0oniX]

63. Silly me ...I should know better than to use common sense.

:evilgrin:

[peacetalksforall]

7. Amen.

[asjr]

10. Great idea!

[Romulox]

15. That would be MASSIVELY unfair as long as we have "free trade" with China

American companies would get a penalty for "offshoring" by sourcing from China, while foreign companies would get a huge competitive advantage.

[L0oniX]

18. Does free trade really imply labor too?

[Romulox]

22. Of course. Labor is required to manufacture the items that are traded.

"Does free trade really imply labor too"

Yes. Labor is the human input required to produce goods. Of course "free trade" implicates labor!

Scenario:

GE makes a toaster in China. Charged an "outsourcing fine".
Phillips makes a toaster in China. No fine. The toaster sells for 1/2 what the GE toaster sells for.

Unintended consequence: an effective subsidy to the foreign company.

[L0oniX]

31. We might as well learn Chinese and move there huh?

[Romulox]

42. No need; a third world standard of living is being imported into America. nt

[treestar]

40. The only real answer to this is for Americans to understand

They should pay for made in America products, even if they are more expensive, to keep American jobs here.

Now all people think of is get item A for the lowest possible price. Literally they need to pay twice as much for the same toaster, if it was made in the US. Even if the Chinese make the same quality toaster for half the price.

In other words, until Americans value Americans having jobs over lower prices, this is going to happen.

[cabluedem]

46. China-made and "quality" dont' seem to mix too well, from what I have seen so far.

[treestar]

62. Maybe but people still buy it. How to get them to buy the more

expensive, higher quality American toaster is the question.

[cabluedem]

66. I agree! nt

[leveymg]

23. Domestic content laws can be expanded, as can labeling.

I'd pay a premium for goods made in the USA, if they were labeled. If they can do it for automobiles, they can do it for lawnmowers and pharmaceuticals.

[Romulox]

24. They *can*, but the present administration is dedicated to "free trade"

So they likely won't.

"If they can do it for automobiles, they can do it for lawnmowers and pharmaceuticals."

Right. They can force domestic content percentage to be placed on a sticker. But the majority of cars Americans buy are nonetheless from foreign makes.

[leveymg]

26. That Honda or Toyota was assembled inside the U.S.

The Big Three largely abandoned the passenger vehicle market, and instead chose to concentrate on the monster truck market. So people bought Camrys instead.

Who can blame us?

[Romulox]

27. LOL. Weren't you demanding domestic content laws a second ago?

:crazy:

[leveymg]

38. Where's the contradiction? Domestic assembly was imposed on the Japanese automakers

in the 1980s as a condition of their ability to continue selling cars here.

Do the same thing with all other goods. What's unclear about that?

[Romulox]

41. Errr, no it wasn't. It's currently economically advantageous, but it is not required. nt

[leveymg]

50. The threat of legislation imposing import quotas led to "voluntary" measures, including

the opening of final assembly plants in the U.S. by the major Japanese auto companies.

The 1982 Bill had 200 co-sponsors in the House, and would likely have passed if agreements hadn't been forced. Such threats no longer have nearly as much weight under the present WTO regime.

[Romulox]

56. 1982 was LOOONG time ago. The Democratic Party's official stance is now in support of "Free trade"

It's hardly reasonable to suggest that Toyota et al are frightened of a bill that had 200 co-sponsors in 1982, especially since the official position of the current admin. is in support of free trade.

"Such threats no longer have nearly as much weight under the present WTO regime."

Right. Which means there are no "domestic content laws" (as you suggested upthread,) nor are there any real prospects of the same ever being passed.

In short, requiring domestic content percentages to be placed on labels will have little or no impact on outsourcing.

[cabluedem]

47. Monster truck market? Many US cars are very well made. Get a clue!

[Romulox]

57. He's a "free trade" shill, as far as I can tell. nt

[cabluedem]

67. Nope, but buying American Goods wouldn't be a bad idea right now, do you think?

[LiberalEsto]

29. Yes!

Any business that accepts federal government grants, contracts, research funds, federal tax breaks, state or local property tax breaks, etc. should immediately LOSE ALL of those if they send jobs overseas or hire foreigners over Americans.

Why should we Americans pay taxes to subsidize companies that put us out of work?

[madokie]

35. It should have been done long ago

I would have no problem with it being mandatory to do it all here where ever its possible.

[Jakes Progress]

36. Granted that if this were done openly

we would be violating some trade agreements and also creating problems for our own exports. But other countries manage to get around the problem. We could too if we didn't have such rewards for sending jobs overseas. Surely we can use the minds of the weasels who figured out how to make money exporting jobs to figure ways to keep them here.

The above mentioned retraining tax would be one way. It wouldn't take $25K per job. Companies operated on smaller margins than that. They don't save tens of thousands on a replaced worker. They make it up in bulk. They fire a thousand workers to save a couple of thou each. Sort of like the CEO's that lay off a five hundred family bread winners so they can afford to put the gold fixtures in the guest bathroom of the vacation home they use three weeks a year.

[L0oniX]

37. Fair trade should not mean or include outsourcing our jobs ...that's just wrong.

[Waiting For Everyman]

39. Agree, absolutely.

There are ways to make outsourcing "unprofitable". Do them all. Especially, it should be illegal to oursource anything that is funded by taxes. That is absurd.

[truedelphi]

49. Problem is, those companies that outsource will simply move

Lock stock and barrel to Singapore. Or some other exotic city.

I was told before the election that Yahoo, Google and other internet-connected companies would be moving their workforce overseas, as they did not want to pay our Treasury the taxes that might increase once Obama came into office.

[area51]

53. A lot of companies say that in a blackmail attempt,

but why don't they just leave now if they're so unhappy.

[truedelphi]

54. Well Google sort of did leave.

They laid off a huge number of people. Although the company still operates out of its headquarters in Silicon Valley, I imagine that they will be all too happy to move out entirely if Obama isn't enough of a Republican to suit them. They are simply waiting to see if Geithner, Rubin and Summers handle the economy, or if someone more radical does.

Please understand me - I hate that this is how American companies operate. I am not approving of this. Do not shoot the messenger.

[FatDave]

58. Did they replace those employees with foreign labor?

Did they open any new offices out of the country? I always thought google was a pretty good company that treated their employees well and hired Americans and sponsored technology education and whatnot.

I realize that layoffs are bad, but they are not leaving the country.

If there's details I'm unaware of (and there may well be) please inform me.

[L0oniX]

59. How about if they leave then ban them from doing business here

[Waiting For Everyman]

64. Why move, when the tax breaks would reward them?

Just to spitefully avoid employing Americans, even though they'd have no need to? Then let them. Other companies which employ here and get the breaks for it would surpass them.

I think they'd find their products getting blackballed more and more for that kind of attitude.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

55. and we can add raising taxes for all companies

who eliminate jobs and replace them with non benefited contract labor.

[EraOfResponsibility]

65. That was an Obama campaign promise. He talked about it

during the primaries AND the general election