Clinton Cutting Corporations A Break

Clinton To Target ‘Inversions’ With Exit Tax

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton unveiled plans Wednesday to crack down on companies that seek to dodge U.S. taxes by denouncing their U.S. citizenship and moving their headquarters overseas.

“Those gosh darn companies avoiding dem taxes I ain’t never gon’ see! Shame on dem, you tell em Hill!”

Specifically, Clinton’s proposal, announced during Town Hall meetings in Iowa, would target a practice known as “earnings stripping,” in which companies that have shifted their tax addresses overseas in a tactic known as an “inversion” take advantage of various loopholes to reduce their tax burdens.

“Okay introducing common sense here; there’s a reason why companies shift their earnings to reduce their tax burdens. Every person who handles their own money usually skirt their earnings to earn as many tax credits as possible. And rather it’s an individual or corporation–who’d want ANY burden on them period? Oh..wait–“

“The maneuvers powerful corporations are using to game the system and leave everyday taxpayers holding the bag are just offensive,” Clinton said in a statement.

“Well first off, the game is business and business involves numbers, so if you take numbers offensive then maybe it’s time to take a look at your balance sheet again. Second, the reason this country still have employment going on is because these companies had to game the system in order to hire in the first place. Unfortunately now, most of these hires are becoming tax lawyers and accountants rather than workers actually making a product the consumers want to buy. And last, everyday taxpayers got to ask themselves if they’re getting the shit end of the stick, maybe it’s time they play the game too so they don’t hold the bag anymore. It’s very easy to start your own game here”.

Inversions have raised the ire of politicians from across the political spectrum as the practice has escalated in recent decades.

In the largest inversion to date, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer (PFE) announced last month it will merge with Irish drug maker Allergan, with Pfizer relocating its corporate headquarters from New York to Dublin.

And as long as we have the current tax code we have now, this is what will happen”.

 “All told, inversions by Pfizer and other companies, plus related loopholes, will cost American taxpayers more than $80 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. That’s money we should be investing here at home. This is not only about fairness; this is about patriotism. I want to raise the cost to corporations that try to get out of paying their fair share,” Clinton added, according to a statement released by her campaign.
“She got me started, first off she threw numbers out there so I’ll throw some back. She says these inversions and loopholes WILL cost the American taxpayers more than $80 billion in revenue over the next decade. So I assume she knows every-single-word-and-page of the 70k plus tax code. And if she do, she’s either in denial of why these corporations are shipping out, or there’s some kind of sinister motive behind her agenda.
She says that’s money they should be investing here at home. I’m going to say the following with a straight face; $80 billion is lunch money, compared to over a half a trillion dollars American citizens (including businesses) spend annually on complying with the current tax code right now–that’s $500 BILLION-plus!
Now, if you had to choose, which lost would you prefer as a nation in the next decade? Remember one in a hand, two in a bush; $500 billion+ annual cost NOW, versus $80 billion in the next decade with these inversions?
Secondly, the term “patriotism”. You know, Americans aren’t the only country that believes in patriotism. It could blind people to reality and facts that things are happening in the outside without you seeing what’s going on. Questioning your government is “unpatriotic”, it’s so mentally handicapped to be patriotic, people were willing to give up their personal liberties under the PATRIOT Act. There is NO patriotic duty for anyone to pay an income tax at all. Income taxes takes coercion and force, and if that’s what patriotism is, maybe it’s time to give patriotism a second thought, and look.
And finally regarding what’s “fair”. I’ve asked so many people who argued how the wealthy should pay their fair share. I asked them to give me a number, because at the end of the day taxes are dealing with money right? So throw me a percentage, a number of what’s fair. But before they answer, I informed them that the tax code is about north of $70 thousand pages full with so many breaks, penalties, clauses, incentives, loopholes and it goes on and on and on. So to be sure, they have to figure out all that before they give me a fair number. For instance; the overall tax rate is 35 percent, but after all deductions it’s about 2 percent of the entire rate, hypothetically. So what’s the fair share number of 2 percent? “Paying their fair share” has been such a talking point it’s predictable when a person’s about to say it. I just ask them that one simple question; can you give me a number?

Clinton said as president she would initiate an “exit tax” on the untaxed earnings of corporations that use inversion deals to relocate overseas.

“Which will add more words and pages to the tax code, and there will be a loophole for that one as well. NOW I’m curious to who agrees with that and supposedly plan to “vote” for her–next order please.”

In an effort to avoid paying the higher tax rate, U.S. companies have increasingly sought so-called inversions, or mergers that allow them to relocate their headquarters in countries with lower tax rates. For instance, by moving its corporate headquarters to Ireland, Pfizer will be lowering its tax rate from 25% in the U.S. to below 20% on the other side of the Atlantic.

“Have you ever heard someone relocate to another city, state or even country due to an outstanding job offer that a company offered them? One of them was a bigger pay and better benefits than the company they worked for before, or the company moved them from where they were for strategic financial reasons? When you move for your job, should Hillary Clinton punish you with an “exit tax” also? Corporations are doing the same thing. I’m starting to think that the United States has something to hide because not only past Presidents, but these candidates (especially Clinton) are extremely adamant on sticking it to anyone or any company wanting to save a few bucks on their balance sheets.

Pfizer’s CEO Ian Read has argued that a drug company that pays lower taxes can spend more on research and development.

Other high-profile U.S. companies that have completed inversions in recent years include fast food chain Burger King Worldwide (BKW), drug maker Mylan (MYL) and advertising giant Omnicom Group (OMC).

“I’ve argued many times before; CEOs of every company they work for has a job to do, and their job is to increase profitability, lower cost and liabilities, and increase value for the shareholders who owns the company. That’s their job, and in that position you better know the game or you’re out and so are your benefits and compensation package as well. So much for providing for your family.

CEOs has to look at financial,economical and political trends in the markets they do business with in order to make strategic decisions that are best for their business. Patriotism and dedication to your country (although admirable and respected) can interfere with a level headed decision if you get too caught up, and can affect every person connected to that company from all walks of life, nationalities, cultures and religions. I say this to give people a look through the eyes of the person who make the tough decision to relocate their company overseas or across the border. It is not an easy decision, however it needs to be done, and sometimes the relocation cost in addition to the tax savings in the new location outweighs the financial tax burdens in the long run. Due to the unpredictable and shaky administration now, companies aren’t taking a chance and doing what they have to do for their shareholders, and you as a consumer”.

In 2014, during a speech on job creation, President Barack Obama took direct aim at inversions, urging Congress to pass tax reforms that would eliminate the loopholes that allow U.S. companies to shield large portions of their profits overseas.

And last month the Treasury Department announced an array of new rules that would make it harder for companies to shift their addresses overseas solely to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It was the Treasury’s second stab at discouraging inversions in the past year-and-a-half, since the practice became a hot-button political issue in Washington.

Clinton took on Wall Street earlier this week, calling for a broad crack down on the financial system she says is needed to prevent another financial crisis like the one in 2008 that crippled the global economy.

“Again, with all these measures from the U.S. Treasury and the government, I’m starting to think they really have something juicy to hide. Or maybe it’s a power trip, who knows? But what I do know is this–companies are leaving in droves, and many are being bought out and you as an employee has two choices, either move with them or join the unemployment line.

So what I’m seeing above also is a “North Korean” style tactic of holding United States corporations hostage by financial bullying tactics. I know it seems as though I’m revving on Hillary Clinton, but I don’t blame her for what she’s saying (if she said it, you know how MSM is). She’s a politician, and I see politicians as masterful business operators with a brand that sell on voters’ emotions. They tell their constituents what they want to hear, and paint them colorful pictures of what-ifs. Hillary Clinton is a businesswoman that’s been involved in this business along with her husband for a long time, and they’ve mastered the game of bullshit.

Bullshit is actually an industry, and people vote for it every election. So I’m not throwing Hillary under the bus here. But what I am seeing is her supporters that believe in what she’s saying and agree with it. They are the ones that can’t see beyond “patriotism” and “pay your fair share” taglines. Saying those words is like McDonald’s saying ‘I’m Lovin’ It” and Burger King letting you know how much you can ‘Have It Your Way’, and all of a sudden you’re hungry. Pavlov’s experiment.

Same here, they hear those key words, all of a sudden “wealth, money, success, growing a business, tax cheats, I’m a proud yet bitter middle-class unemployed loser that wants to throw my financial woes on the rich” feeling starts to take over. Clinton is a product and her supporters are consuming every single noun and syllable she’s throwing at them. She knows the game. They ALL know the game, but when you understand it and can control a crowd, you’d say about anything to win an election.


So what’s your thoughts on this? Share below…


Leave a Reply