The Donalds 35% Tax for outsourcing and offshoring jobs.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
BTW, I am all for punishing companies that ship jobs out of the United States
Playing Devil's Advocate here, if you're running a business, and can lower your overhead costs by reducing your salary bill via offshoring, then that's surely better for the business (if not the economy). A business is only interested in increasing profit share for its shareholders. If that entails taking jobs offshore then so be it. Instead of punishing businesses for taking jobs offshore, surely it would be far better to remove their incentive for doing so in the first place. How about tax breaks for using local employees instead of offshore ones. I think carrot rather than stick would be a better and ultimately more rewarding solution for all.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Dominic Burford wrote:
How about tax breaks for using local employees instead of offshore ones.
That is one of the things Trump is going to do. He already did it with Carrier, here in the States. It doesn't have to be, and should not be, "so be it". That is the whole point. If you don't take the incentives, and don't do your part to keep jobs in our country, then you get punished.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
BTW, I am all for punishing companies that ship jobs out of the United States
Playing Devil's Advocate here, if you're running a business, and can lower your overhead costs by reducing your salary bill via offshoring, then that's surely better for the business (if not the economy). A business is only interested in increasing profit share for its shareholders. If that entails taking jobs offshore then so be it. Instead of punishing businesses for taking jobs offshore, surely it would be far better to remove their incentive for doing so in the first place. How about tax breaks for using local employees instead of offshore ones. I think carrot rather than stick would be a better and ultimately more rewarding solution for all.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Tax breaks instead of raising taxes is exactly the same thing.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Slacker007 wrote:
BTW, I am all for punishing companies that ship jobs out of the United States
Playing Devil's Advocate here, if you're running a business, and can lower your overhead costs by reducing your salary bill via offshoring, then that's surely better for the business (if not the economy). A business is only interested in increasing profit share for its shareholders. If that entails taking jobs offshore then so be it. Instead of punishing businesses for taking jobs offshore, surely it would be far better to remove their incentive for doing so in the first place. How about tax breaks for using local employees instead of offshore ones. I think carrot rather than stick would be a better and ultimately more rewarding solution for all.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Dominic Burford wrote:
I think carrot rather than stick would be a better and ultimately more rewarding solution for all.
I'm all for both at once; you can't keep a mule moving with just one.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
Slacker007 wrote:
BTW, I am all for punishing companies that ship jobs out of the United States
Playing Devil's Advocate here, if you're running a business, and can lower your overhead costs by reducing your salary bill via offshoring, then that's surely better for the business (if not the economy). A business is only interested in increasing profit share for its shareholders. If that entails taking jobs offshore then so be it. Instead of punishing businesses for taking jobs offshore, surely it would be far better to remove their incentive for doing so in the first place. How about tax breaks for using local employees instead of offshore ones. I think carrot rather than stick would be a better and ultimately more rewarding solution for all.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
-
Slacker007 wrote:
BTW, I am all for punishing companies that ship jobs out of the United States
Playing Devil's Advocate here, if you're running a business, and can lower your overhead costs by reducing your salary bill via offshoring, then that's surely better for the business (if not the economy). A business is only interested in increasing profit share for its shareholders. If that entails taking jobs offshore then so be it. Instead of punishing businesses for taking jobs offshore, surely it would be far better to remove their incentive for doing so in the first place. How about tax breaks for using local employees instead of offshore ones. I think carrot rather than stick would be a better and ultimately more rewarding solution for all.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Better for the business? Not necessarily: Troy Hunt: Offshoring roulette: lessons from outsourcing to India, China and the Philippines[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Will this tax if it exists cover Professional and IT Jobs, or just manufacturing?
He should start with himself.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
BTW, I am all for punishing companies that ship jobs out of the United States
Playing Devil's Advocate here, if you're running a business, and can lower your overhead costs by reducing your salary bill via offshoring, then that's surely better for the business (if not the economy). A business is only interested in increasing profit share for its shareholders. If that entails taking jobs offshore then so be it. Instead of punishing businesses for taking jobs offshore, surely it would be far better to remove their incentive for doing so in the first place. How about tax breaks for using local employees instead of offshore ones. I think carrot rather than stick would be a better and ultimately more rewarding solution for all.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
It is the American way to punish for doing the wrong thing, instead of bringing incentive to do the right thing.
-
It is the American way to punish for doing the wrong thing, instead of bringing incentive to do the right thing.
The other way around doesn't work: in Italy nobody gets punished so everybode does what he wants. In fact corruption and malversation are accepted by the population under the assumption "If I was in his place I'd have done the same". Punish and make examples - as my signature says, "DURA LEX, SED LEX".
DURA LEX, SED LEX GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
-
Tax breaks instead of raising taxes is exactly the same thing.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Tax breaks instead of raising taxes is exactly the same thing.
How so?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
That makes it sound nicer, but it's exactly the same thing, unless you can conjure up money out of thin air to fill the hole that the tax break left.
harold aptroot wrote:
thin air to fill the hole that the tax break left.
No need. There are several options. One is to reduce government spending. The other is, which has been proven to work, lower taxes create more revenue in the marketplace generating even more taxes for the government than raising taxes would have. In a free capital economy, lower taxes generally will increase revenue to the government.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Dominic Burford wrote:
How about tax breaks for using local employees instead of offshore ones.
That is one of the things Trump is going to do. He already did it with Carrier, here in the States. It doesn't have to be, and should not be, "so be it". That is the whole point. If you don't take the incentives, and don't do your part to keep jobs in our country, then you get punished.
Slacker007 wrote:
don't do your part to keep jobs in our country, then you get punished.
Why? We are a global economy now. Your approach seems very selfish.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
don't do your part to keep jobs in our country, then you get punished.
Why? We are a global economy now. Your approach seems very selfish.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Why
Because the standards we impose on our manufacturing make it expensive. Offshoring it circumvents those standards. Offshoring is, by nature, illegal.
-
RyanDev wrote:
Why
Because the standards we impose on our manufacturing make it expensive. Offshoring it circumvents those standards. Offshoring is, by nature, illegal.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Offshoring it circumvents those standards.
Not necessarily.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Offshoring it circumvents those standards.
Not necessarily.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Offshoring it circumvents those standards.
Not necessarily
Of course 'not necessarily', but the percentage of offshore manufacturers meeting US safety and welfare standards is the criterion that is important. E.G., Garment producers in Bangladesh evidence a somewhat laissez faire attitude to Health and Safety, let alone hours worked and pay.
-
RyanDev wrote:
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Offshoring it circumvents those standards.
Not necessarily
Of course 'not necessarily', but the percentage of offshore manufacturers meeting US safety and welfare standards is the criterion that is important. E.G., Garment producers in Bangladesh evidence a somewhat laissez faire attitude to Health and Safety, let alone hours worked and pay.
However, if the US allows those products to be imported, then it is not against the law. :^)
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
However, if the US allows those products to be imported, then it is not against the law. :^)
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
However, if the US allows those products to be imported, then it is not against the law.
Yup. I assume that was why Munchies wrote "by nature, illegal". The US Health and Safety legislation puts into law a 'Code of Accepted Rules'. Moving manufacturing offshore to evade that Code is, innately, illegal. (And, actually, illicit.)
-
RyanDev wrote:
However, if the US allows those products to be imported, then it is not against the law.
Yup. I assume that was why Munchies wrote "by nature, illegal". The US Health and Safety legislation puts into law a 'Code of Accepted Rules'. Moving manufacturing offshore to evade that Code is, innately, illegal. (And, actually, illicit.)
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Moving manufacturing offshore to evade that Code is
I doubt all offshorers are trying to evade codes. Many just want to use cheaper labor.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Moving manufacturing offshore to evade that Code is
I doubt all offshorers are trying to evade codes. Many just want to use cheaper labor.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Moving manufacturing offshore to evade that Code is
I doubt all offshorers are trying to evade codes. Many just want to use cheaper labor.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
I doubt all offshorers are trying to evade codes.
Why? It reduces their costs, and isn't that why they are moving offshore?
RyanDev wrote:
Many just want to use cheaper labor.
One would hope not. They'd go broke. The Rag Trade is labour intensive, but even they, like all firms, need tax, and other financial, incentives to 'set up shop' offshore. Because, generally, the cost of labour is a small percentage of the total cost of production and thus, the selling price. Unless one is going to sell into a country (and its neighbours), there is little point in moving one's production there.
-
RyanDev wrote:
I doubt all offshorers are trying to evade codes.
Why? It reduces their costs, and isn't that why they are moving offshore?
RyanDev wrote:
Many just want to use cheaper labor.
One would hope not. They'd go broke. The Rag Trade is labour intensive, but even they, like all firms, need tax, and other financial, incentives to 'set up shop' offshore. Because, generally, the cost of labour is a small percentage of the total cost of production and thus, the selling price. Unless one is going to sell into a country (and its neighbours), there is little point in moving one's production there.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
isn't that why they are moving offshore?
That's not why we were looking into it. It was to save money on labor. Americans are some of the highest paid in the world so moving to other countries can save a ton of money,
NoNotThatBob wrote:
They'd go broke.
Why would they go broke by using cheaper labor? We used developers from India on several projects that were very successful and we saved lots of money doing it that way.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
the cost of labour is a small percentage of the total cost of production
Not sure where you got that but labor, at least in the US, in most sectors is the largest expense of a business.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
