Taxing Multi-National Companies

We have a problem with multi-national companies “recognizing” their profits in countries where they will pay few if any taxes, while avoiding recognizing profits where their business is. United States tax laws allow companies to only pay taxes on those profits “made” in the US, or repatriated to this country. Given that, companies play games with how they recognize profits, and they certainly don’t intend to repatriate the money to this country.

One of the ways they do this is to play with ‘transfer pricing’. When one part of the work is done in one country, and another part is done in another, the company can arbitrarily decide what price one part of the company will “charge” another part. They set the pricing so the part of the company with lower taxes makes most of the profits. They also will move the headquarters for the company or a subsidiary to a country with lower taxes.

As a result, the US collects fewer corporate income taxes as a proportion of total taxes than it did any time since World War II. By one accounting, eight US technology companies between them have parked $2.1 trillion in profits overseas to avoid US income taxes. Why should we care? Because that increases the US budget deficit and makes it harder to pay for US military, roads, bridges, police, education, etc.

How can we deal with this problem? Perhaps we should no longer allowing companies to arbitrarily set transfer pricing to hide profits, for one thing. For tax purposes in the US, they must have revenues and profits proportional. So if they have $200 million in sales and $20 million in profits, with $100 million of their sales in the US, then $10 million of their profits would be taxable here. Maybe we should also make companies with overseas headquarters ineligible for certain US government contracts.

Ordinary taxpayers – you and I – are subsidizing highly profitable corporations. This is unfair and should not be allowed to continue. Beyond that, it makes it more advantageous to ship US jobs overseas where they can pay the workers less and increase the profits further.

G-d and the Nature of G-d

If there is a G-d, it is something beyond our understanding or comprehension. Even the ordinary things of this world have more aspects than we can truly perceive, how much more so for any divinity which may exist. Each of us is capable only of perceiving through the lens of our own experiences. Therefore each of us will see something different even looking at the mundane. I believe there is a G-d, though I accept that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence thereof. Each of us who tries is capable of perceiving some portion of that G-d, though no two of us can fully agree on what it is. My focus therefore is to live around the idea of not hurting others and speaking out against those who wish to hurt others. The niceties of dogma and ritual are only window dressing, at best.

Gun Control Redux

The gun control argument all too quickly degenerates into a futile exchange of accusations and often insults. That is distressing and does not get us any closer to ending or even reducing the string of mass shootings in the United States.

Pro-gun people say gun control doesn’t work, that there are too many laws on the books already, and that the existing laws need to be enforced. Extreme anti-gun people say ban all guns. The first argument basically means live with the current situation. The second has no chance of being enacted in this country in the foreseeable future. We need a middle way.

We are not going to end mass shootings in the US. There are simply too many legal guns and it is too easy for people to legally obtain guns. Further there is no popular support for changing those things. While we may not be able to end mass shootings, that does not mean we cannot reduce the number of mass shootings or the death toll from these incidents.

The numbers seem to vary, but surveys show that roughly 80% of Americans are in favor of improved background checks. How can we improve background checks while not interfering with the ability of most law abiding citizens to obtain weapons? We don’t know how accurate the number is, but one estimate from some years back was that perhaps as much as 40% of guns sold had no background check. How could this be? First, there is the gun show loophole allowing sales at gun shows by non-licensed dealers to proceed with no background check. Second, there is the three day rule which says if the background check is not completed in three days, the seller can complete the sale with no check. Third, we have private gun sales or transfers, which never have background checks. We should close the gun show loophole, and end the three day rule. We should also provide an easy means, and insist that private sales also undergo a background check.

We need to tighten who can pass a background check. Convicted violent felons generally cannot buy guns legally, but suspected terrorists on the no-fly list can buy them. While people who have been committed for mental problems usually can’t legally buy guns, folks with serious mental problems who were never committed can. Folks who have been stalking, harassing, abusing, or under restraining orders can buy guns unless they have a violent felony conviction. I suggest we keep all three of these categories of people from buying guns legally. I would not categorize any of these as being ‘good law-abiding’ citizens. For the third category, once restraining orders are lifted, and a reasonable time after the last charge for stalking, harassment, or abuse, I’d allow them again. The mental prohibition should apply to anyone who a mental health professional feels is a danger to others.

While I would not limit other types of weapons, I’d suggest that semi-automatic and “assault weapons” be banned as they were previously. I’d also suggest that high capacity magazines also be banned. To me, neither is necessary either for hunting or personal protection. Further, something like 28% of all mass shootings involved assault weapons, and when used the death tolls were more than 50% higher. I suspect that will reduce the incidence of mass shootings, and at the least reduce the death toll from those shootings. Many of the folks who used assault weapons with high capacity magazines might well think twice about it, if neither was available.