What is the impact of Obama's statement - Pay more tax on Outsourcing
-
Will imposing more tax on Outsourcing will help huge companies to save more tax? I believe the amount of money saved from tax will me much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing... Will Obama get support from Business loby?
Regards, Pavas
I suspect that the bigger companies will get away by setting up foreign subsidiary companies. So whatever work they get done from that office will probably not come under offshore outsourcing.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
Does he mean taxing outsourcing or offshoring? They are different.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
-
Will imposing more tax on Outsourcing will help huge companies to save more tax? I believe the amount of money saved from tax will me much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing... Will Obama get support from Business loby?
Regards, Pavas
This is a form of protectionism, which is always a double edged sword. Like many others, I watched a once highly profitable career in IT degrade rapidly due in part to cheaper foriegn competition. This is nothing new, of course, as it's happened continually in many manufacturing based industries. Whether it's a tax change, tariffs or other penalties, the idea is to make it unprofitable for American companies to send jobs overseas when there are locals looking for work. And on the surface, that sounds pretty good if you're an American IT worker who's career has been trashed by cheap international labor. The problem is that the world is a very complicated, interconnected place. If the current administration does come up with a silver bullet (or a full clip of lead ones) that serves as a serious disincentive to outsourcing, the risk is that other nations will retaliate with penalties that hamper the flow of American products and services. There are no actions without consequences. It's hard to justify paying an American contracting company $125 an hour for a programmer when they can get guys in India, Russia and other such places to work for what McDonald's pays someone here to flip burgers. I'm an enthusiastic American and I'd love to find some relief for American IT workers, but I don't think financial disincentives large enough to truly make outsourcing unprofitable will ever survive the political process. Even if they did, it's hard to predict the consequences. If you want to keep your high paid American jobs, you have to do it by convincing companies to keep jobs local in a language that they'll understand: bottom line profitability. If you can't do that, your job is indeed going to a third world nation. The only thing that any businessman will truly respond to is an answer to the ever present question, "What's in it for me?" If you're not prepared to answer that question head on, you shouldn't be in the conversation.
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalUSA.com
-
This is a form of protectionism, which is always a double edged sword. Like many others, I watched a once highly profitable career in IT degrade rapidly due in part to cheaper foriegn competition. This is nothing new, of course, as it's happened continually in many manufacturing based industries. Whether it's a tax change, tariffs or other penalties, the idea is to make it unprofitable for American companies to send jobs overseas when there are locals looking for work. And on the surface, that sounds pretty good if you're an American IT worker who's career has been trashed by cheap international labor. The problem is that the world is a very complicated, interconnected place. If the current administration does come up with a silver bullet (or a full clip of lead ones) that serves as a serious disincentive to outsourcing, the risk is that other nations will retaliate with penalties that hamper the flow of American products and services. There are no actions without consequences. It's hard to justify paying an American contracting company $125 an hour for a programmer when they can get guys in India, Russia and other such places to work for what McDonald's pays someone here to flip burgers. I'm an enthusiastic American and I'd love to find some relief for American IT workers, but I don't think financial disincentives large enough to truly make outsourcing unprofitable will ever survive the political process. Even if they did, it's hard to predict the consequences. If you want to keep your high paid American jobs, you have to do it by convincing companies to keep jobs local in a language that they'll understand: bottom line profitability. If you can't do that, your job is indeed going to a third world nation. The only thing that any businessman will truly respond to is an answer to the ever present question, "What's in it for me?" If you're not prepared to answer that question head on, you shouldn't be in the conversation.
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalUSA.com
I would be O.K. with the whole process as long as it was fair. Ie. if it were legal to compensate an employee in the United States the exact same as an employee in an outsourcing company. At least then, everyone is being honest, it is about direct exploitation of labor, laisse faire and all. What irks me is the lie that there are not enough skilled workers in the States. If what American's really want is free/cheap labor then just allow it here so at least I don't have to move out of the country to get a job at $1 an hour.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
-
This is a form of protectionism, which is always a double edged sword. Like many others, I watched a once highly profitable career in IT degrade rapidly due in part to cheaper foriegn competition. This is nothing new, of course, as it's happened continually in many manufacturing based industries. Whether it's a tax change, tariffs or other penalties, the idea is to make it unprofitable for American companies to send jobs overseas when there are locals looking for work. And on the surface, that sounds pretty good if you're an American IT worker who's career has been trashed by cheap international labor. The problem is that the world is a very complicated, interconnected place. If the current administration does come up with a silver bullet (or a full clip of lead ones) that serves as a serious disincentive to outsourcing, the risk is that other nations will retaliate with penalties that hamper the flow of American products and services. There are no actions without consequences. It's hard to justify paying an American contracting company $125 an hour for a programmer when they can get guys in India, Russia and other such places to work for what McDonald's pays someone here to flip burgers. I'm an enthusiastic American and I'd love to find some relief for American IT workers, but I don't think financial disincentives large enough to truly make outsourcing unprofitable will ever survive the political process. Even if they did, it's hard to predict the consequences. If you want to keep your high paid American jobs, you have to do it by convincing companies to keep jobs local in a language that they'll understand: bottom line profitability. If you can't do that, your job is indeed going to a third world nation. The only thing that any businessman will truly respond to is an answer to the ever present question, "What's in it for me?" If you're not prepared to answer that question head on, you shouldn't be in the conversation.
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalUSA.com
Christopher Duncan wrote:
"What's in it for me?"
Ah yes, the words of greed, most often hidden behind corporate babble like: - The company needs to improve profitability - We have obligations to our share holders - We're looking to cut costs and overhead, to improve our bottom line and streamline our business processes. I've seen what causes this, over and over and over, and it's simple, really: 1. Company produces product that is wildly successful 2. Company growth (meaning number of hired employees) runs unchecked and unconstrained; most often, new positions and entire departments are formed for almost, no real purpose, frankly. 3. Success levels off, but company growth does not 4. As one should expect, profits level off, but the "company" is now larger than it's income 5. Company is forced to layoff, consumers become nervous that company is unstable, sales drop 6. Company is forced to layoff even more, because of loss of profit, fears regarding company increase, sales drop further 7. People "at the top" start to panic, not understanding why this has happened, and wanting to continue their life-styles, they look for any means necessary to become profitable again; outsourcing seems to be that answer 8. Company laysoff entire work force, outsources all production to another country 9. Company see "profits" increase, mainly because costs are down, so consumer confidence improves and sales improve, company claims it's "all due to outsourcing, and how wonderful it is" 10. After a while, new product is released ... see step #1 If companies would learn to control themselves in step #2, which they do not, a lot of this may actually be avoidable, but alas, it seems greed is the engine by which many are driven, and it is because of that, this cycle will never end. But hey! I'm probably totally wrong, and greed has nothing to do with this at all ... D.
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTL -
Will imposing more tax on Outsourcing will help huge companies to save more tax? I believe the amount of money saved from tax will me much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing... Will Obama get support from Business loby?
Regards, Pavas
Sounds like nonsense. Vote with your dollars (or whatever); don't buy products from companies whose business practices (whatever they may be) you don't like. If a company sees its market share drop when they offshore, they'll get the message.
-
Will imposing more tax on Outsourcing will help huge companies to save more tax? I believe the amount of money saved from tax will me much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing... Will Obama get support from Business loby?
Regards, Pavas
mpavas wrote:
much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing..
Someone saved money by outsourcing?
Why is common sense not common? Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy Individuality is fine, as long as we do it together - F. Burns Help humanity, join the CodeProject grid computing team here
-
Will imposing more tax on Outsourcing will help huge companies to save more tax? I believe the amount of money saved from tax will me much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing... Will Obama get support from Business loby?
Regards, Pavas
The biggest danger in this type of protectionism is that large companies will move the bulk of their operations offshore and what's left in the US will be the subsidiary--offshoring and outsourcing with then mean sending work to the US, not the other way around. There is precedence for this in both US states and other countries.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Will imposing more tax on Outsourcing will help huge companies to save more tax? I believe the amount of money saved from tax will me much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing... Will Obama get support from Business loby?
Regards, Pavas
mpavas wrote:
Will Obama get support from Business loby?
More importantly he knows it will never get through Congress.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
mpavas wrote:
Will Obama get support from Business loby?
More importantly he knows it will never get through Congress.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
I support one thing a government should look forward for there contry men and women. If they can'nt then throw the govt. US presedent is a very important person in the world and one statement could change the common men life by only statement and not by Action. I wonder what all these big developed contries, financial institutions where doing...We actually waste lot of resoruces on forcasting and none of us could save the world from recession. One of the person over here told did the company saved the money after outsourcing so I would say..if they haven't they would have not outsourced. Also no one think there is no skill labor in IT industry in US. I think most of the inovation still happens in United States This world is a very competative every one will go to a place where there will be a good price and low cost. Who wants to pay more for a job done.
Regards, Pavas
-
Will imposing more tax on Outsourcing will help huge companies to save more tax? I believe the amount of money saved from tax will me much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing... Will Obama get support from Business loby?
Regards, Pavas
mpavas wrote:
I believe the amount of money saved from tax will me much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing...
Good question. I think it is not meant to stop outsourcing, but to take more money from the producers.
mpavas wrote:
Will Obama get support from Business loby?
I believe this question is in-appropriate and that the term "Business lob[b]y" is undefined (I threw a null exception when I read and attemped to parse those two words.) The appropriate question to ask in this and all situations when economic policy is planned is: "Is this healthy? In other words, will the free market reject this plan leaving people with less quality of life, or will the free market flourish in response?" According to historical fact, when leaders try to control an economy and try to force it into a particular configuration, free markets reject it and this causes devestation and terrible human suffering can ensue. One extreme example is the current global economic crisis--caused by the US government's decision to screw with a free market and provide a financial safety net for investors in Freddie and Fannie. As government sponsored enterprises (GSE's), they were the epicenter of the explosion that took out many other big institutions. AIG went under because they invested in them, Lehman brothers went under because they invested in them, mortgage companies like Country-wide, etc. sold them securitized sub-prime mortgages. So, money from OUR investment banks, was given it to the GSE's, who gave it to mortgage companies, who gave it to peeps who sold their over-priced-homes. The first transaction in that last sentence was "guaranteed" by Uncle Sam, therefore there was no "risk". But, that therein lies the problem. Our government tried to remove "risk" in investment (for a host of reasons), but free markets must have "risk" in order to be free--and this is why the free market rejected it. The more we kid ourselves of the omnipotent monster of the free market, the more we elect "thought-kings" who think they can remake the economy, the more we all suffer.
modified on Friday, May 8, 2009 4:05 PM
-
Will imposing more tax on Outsourcing will help huge companies to save more tax? I believe the amount of money saved from tax will me much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing... Will Obama get support from Business loby?
Regards, Pavas
The Wall Street Journal has made a prediction of what will happen if Obama's plan makes it into the tax code. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124157636504090459.html[^] They predict the result will be more companies leaving the USA and taking the jobs with them. Why? Because the USA has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (behind Japan and we know how their economy has been doing for the last 20 years).:thumbsdown: The current system of not taxing offshore earnings was designed to give US companies a level playing field against foreign companies. If US companies are taxed at the full US rate for international activities, they will be at a competitive disadvantage and will lose international sales. For example under Obama's plan the cost of US products in France would be 5% higher, in Ireland they would be ~27% higher. Do you think the French or Irish will pay that much more for a Made in the USA label? If Obama's plan is put into effect, every company that can, will move to a lower tax location. The result will be a continued decline in US competitiveness and continued loss of jobs. If we want to increase jobs in the US, we have to be more competitive, not less.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
-
Will imposing more tax on Outsourcing will help huge companies to save more tax? I believe the amount of money saved from tax will me much much less then the amount of money saved from outsourcing... Will Obama get support from Business loby?
Regards, Pavas
Basically, it will just screw things up more. Don't forget, Michelle has more business experience than BO. He is being driven by his ideology, business bad, greedy, etc., yet he just made 4 million from selling a children's book. Go figure. But folks, really. You miss the entire point of corporate taxes - businesses don't pay them. Never have. You fell for the sucker's game.
Charlie Gilley Will program for food... Hurtling toward a government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid we go. —Michelle Malkin This crap sandwich is all yours.... 2009 "Stimulus Bill"