NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label oracle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oracle. Show all posts

28 April 2011

The Wageless Recovery 26APR11

This is a sobering article by Robert Reich, and I am afraid he is correct in his predictions. From Huffpost.....
This week's biggest economic show occurs tomorrow (Wednesday) when Fed chair Ben Bernanke steps in front of the cameras for the Fed's first-ever news conference. The question on everyone's mind: Will the Fed signal it's now more worried about inflation than recession?
Much of Wall Street thinks inflation is now the biggest threat to the U.S. economy. As has been the case in the past, the Street is dead wrong. The biggest threat is falling into another recession.
The most significant economic news from the first quarter of 2011 is the decline in real wages. That's unusual in a recovery, to say the least. But it's easily explained this time around. In order to keep the jobs they have, millions of Americans are accepting shrinking paychecks. If they've been fired, the only way they can land a new job is to accept even smaller ones.
The wage squeeze is putting most households in a double bind. Before the recession, they'd been able to pay the bills because they had two paychecks. Now, they're likely to have one-and-a half, or just one, and it's shrinking.
Add to this the continuing decline in the value of the biggest asset most people own - their homes -- and what do you get? Consumers who won't and can't buy enough to keep the economy going. That spells recession.
Why doesn't Wall Street get it? For one thing, because lenders always worry more about inflation than borrowers -- and, in general, the wealthier members of a society tend to lend their money to people who are poorer than they are.
But Wall Street's inflation fears are also being stoked by several specifics.
First are price upswings in food and energy. The Street doesn't seem to understand that when most peoples' wages are dropping, additional dollars they spend on groceries and at the gas pump means fewer dollars they have left to spend in the rest of the economy. Rather than cause inflation, this is likely to lead to more job losses.
The Street is also worried that the Fed's easy money policies are pushing the dollar down and thereby fueling inflation - as everything we buy abroad becomes more expensive. But if wages are stuck in the mud and everything we buy abroad costs more, Americans have even fewer dollars to spend. This also spells recession, not inflation.
Finally, the Street worries that if Democrats and Republicans fail to agree to a plan to cut the budget deficit, the credit-worthiness of the United States as a whole will be in jeopardy - causing interest rates to rocket and inflation to explode. Standard & Poors, the erstwhile credit-rating agency, has already sounded the alarm.
The Street has it backwards. Over the long term, the deficit does have to be tackled. But not now. When job growth remains tepid, when wages are dropping, and when the value of most households' major asset is declining, government has to step in to maintain overall demand.
This is the worst possible time to cut public spending or reduce the money supply.
The biggest irony is that the Street is doing wonderfully well right now, in contrast to most Americans. Corporate profits for the first quarter of the year are way up. That's largely because corporate payrolls are down.
Payrolls are down because big companies have been shifting much of their work abroad where business is booming. The Commerce Department recently reported that over the last decade American multinationals (essentially all large American corporations) eliminated 2.9 million American jobs while adding 2.4 million abroad.
What the Commerce Department didn't say is the pace is picking up. In 2000, 30 percent of GE's business was overseas and 46 percent of its employees; now 60 percent of its business is outside the U.S., as are 54 percent of its employees. Over the past five years, Oracle added twice as many workers overseas as in the US; 63 percent of its employees now work abroad.
Corporations are simultaneously finding ways to cut the pay of their remaining U.S. workers -- not just threatening job losses if they don't agree to the cuts, but also automating the work or sending it to non-union states. (The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, an unremittingly reliable barometer of Street thought, argued earlier this week that such states offer workers the freedom to choose whether to join a union -- in reality, the freedom to lose even more bargaining power and be forced to accept even lower wages.)
America's jobless recovery is becoming a wageless recovery. That puts the odds of another recession greater than the risk of inflation. Wall Street and its representatives in Washington don't understand -- or don't want to.

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
 

19 March 2011

How Offshore Tax Havens Save Companies Billions 17MAR11

JUST another example of how corporate greed is hurting the American economy, further enriching the wealthy, the CEOs, while doing nothing to create jobs here, or in the countries they are using to avoid paying American taxes. This is not what the gop and the tea-baggers want us to know about, they prefer to continue their propaganda campaign making corporate America the victims of high taxes here in the U.S. When will the American people wake up!?!?!??
Employees at Google's Dublin office relax underneath the Irish-themed Google logo. Shifting most of its overseas profits through the Dublin office has saved Google billions in taxes.
John Cogill/AP
Employees at Google's Dublin office relax underneath the Irish-themed Google logo. Shifting most of its overseas profits through the Dublin office has saved Google billions in taxes.
The top corporate income tax level in the United States is 35 percent. In the United Kingdom, it's 28 percent. But in Ireland, it's only 12.5 percent, and in Bermuda there's no corporate income tax at all. That means multinational companies that shift their earnings through Ireland or Bermuda can save billions of dollars in taxes each year.
On today's Fresh Air, Bloomberg News reporter Jesse Drucker, who has written extensively about corporate tax-dodging, explains how companies like Google, Pfizer, Lilly, Oracle, Facebook and Microsoft have managed to reduce their tax rates by hundreds of millions — and in some cases, billions — of dollars by taking advantage of offshore tax havens.
In October, Drucker reported that Google had saved $3.1 billion in taxes in the past three years by shifting the majority of its foreign profits into accounts in Ireland, the Netherlands and Bermuda using financial techniques called "the Dutch Sandwich" and "the Double Irish" arrangement. Basically, he says, Google credited its Irish office with the majority of its non-U.S. sales revenue — and then shuttled that money through various subsidiaries located in Ireland and other countries to save billions in taxes.
"You have an Irish operating company out there selling ads — they actually have real employees in Dublin," he explains. "They make payments to a Dutch subsidiary with no employees, which in turn makes payments to a Bermuda-headquartered Irish company with no employees. And the result of all of this is that it all helps to cut about $3 billion in Google's income taxes in the last three years."
Other companies have also been able to cut hundreds off their tax bills by shifting or licensing their earnings overseas. Forest Laboratories Inc., the manufacturer of the antidepressant Lexapro, cut its total income tax bill by more than a third last year by allocating income through various subsidiaries.
"They're a company that does almost 100 percent of its sales here in the U.S., they have almost 100 percent of their employees in the U.S., they're headquartered in New York City and yet the majority of their profits show up overseas, most of them attributed to a mailbox in Bermuda," Drucker says. "An economist at Reed College estimated that the U.S. is losing $60 billion a year in federal tax revenue [from all U.S. companies], but she's actually in the process now of revising that estimate and has arrived at a figure closer to $90 billion."
Jesse Drucker is a reporter on the projects and investigations team at Bloomberg News. He previously wrote for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Observer and The Star-Ledger.
Rozalia Szabo/Courtesy of Jesse Drucker
Jesse Drucker is a reporter on the projects and investigations team at Bloomberg News. He previously wrote for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Observer and The Star-Ledger.
Technically, companies aren't avoiding paying U.S. tax when they shift their income abroad, Drucker says.
"You're merely deferring it for as long as you keep it outside the U.S.," he says. "These are indefinitely reinvested earnings in your non-U.S. operations. When you bring [earned income] home you're supposed to pay U.S. tax minus a credit for the income taxes you've already paid overseas. But companies have a number of techniques for bringing back profits without paying the tax."
One technique, Drucker says, is lobbying the federal government for a tax holiday — a period of time when companies can bring back offshore profits one time at a reduced rate. Advocates of the plan say it would function as a non-government stimulus plan because as much as $1 trillion could flow back into the United States.
"It sounds reasonable," Drucker says, "but I think there are two important things to say about that. No. 1 is that companies, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve, are sitting on a record pile of cash — $1.9 trillion. So to the degree the economy is challenged right now, it's not from lack of cash at the disposal of companies. And there's a fair amount of academic research on what happened [after the last tax holiday, in 2004]. And the result is that there was very little hiring and very little investment that went on as a result of the $300 [or so] billion that came back. Most of that money seemed to buy back stock."
Jane Penner, a spokeswoman for Google, told Bloomberg News the technology giant's practices "are very similar to those at countless other global companies operating across a wide range of industries." She declined to address the particulars of its tax strategies. Frank J. Murdolo, Forest Laboratories' vice president of investor relations, declined to comment on the company's tax planning, Bloomberg News said.

Interview Highlights
On transfer pricing
"Transfer pricing is the law of the land, not just in the U.S. but in countries throughout the world. It's the mechanism for allocating income through various subsidiaries around the world and every major country in the world. And it essentially relies on the assumption that two subsidiaries of the same company can bargain with each other and strike a price that's equivalent to an arm's length transaction that goes on between two unrelated companies in the real world. There are a number of people out there that think that makes this an unenforceable system — that you cannot have two subsidiaries of the same company dealing with each other at arm's length. In other words, there's no way that two subsidiaries of the same company could interact with each other the way two unrelated parties would deal."
On the American Jobs Creation Act
"In 2004, Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act, which permitted countries to bring back profits from offshore one time at a reduced rate — paying 5.25 percent instead of 35 percent. And companies brought back about $312 billion that qualified for the break, and there's a fair amount of literature that shows very little job creation went on as a result of that. And most of that money was used to buy back stock. And companies right now are lobbying for a repeat of that break."
On remaining competitive
"The U.S. and other countries need to create climates that are conducive to business. That's absolutely true. As long as this system exists where companies have the ability to shift profits, they're going to take advantage of that. I guess the question is: Do we want to have a system where your taxable income has so little relation to where the real-world economic activity takes place and, more broadly, the question it raises about the fairness of the tax system — the result of this is that it shifts the tax burden to the people that don't have the ability to do this, i.e., the 99 percent of Americans who don't have access to sophisticated tax advisers and also to the companies that are not multinational."