From the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal, this morning:
. . . .Meanwhile, American politicians are objecting to Pfizer's bid because it would let the company change its tax domicile out of the U.S. This could allow it to save $1 billion a year in tax payments because AstraZeneca pays a lower corporate rate in the U.K. than Pfizer does in the U.S. Michigan Senator Carl Levin is bellowing that this has to stop, though. . . [it is] the punitive tax rate that gives Pfizer every incentive to relocate overseas. It's so much easier to demagogue companies for acting in their self-interest than it is to fix [our] anticompetitive mess of a U.S. tax code.
Merger decisions ought to be made on the business merits, which means they are best left to shareholders and directors, who know their own business and products far better than politicians and pundits. AstraZeneca has so far resisted Pfizer's overtures on legitimate business grounds. But politicians on both sides of the Atlantic aren't helping the companies or their economies by trying to inhibit the free flow of capital across national borders. . . .
So it goes. The solution, I think, is to be a better US citizen, and change the tax code -- not abandon the land of the free.
7 comments:
So, I think I have a problem with the premise to change the tax code. I'm wondering if you've joined the Mitt R. paradigm of corporations are people too~~
First, companies are very good at avoiding what taxes they currently should pay. They take advantage of every opening they can.
Second, lowering the tax rate only makes it more likely that the taxes on the average person will go up. Look at the tax rate for individuals throughout Europe. Do you think Americans will be willing to let their individual taxes go up? The cost for operations have to be paid for by someone. We cannot continue to push it down the road.
Third, the rest of the developed countries 'fix' prices on the pharma industry. Essentially underwriting the rest of the world's Rx use. Despite that, do you think we (the US citizens)are willing to cap our Rxs?
The costs continue, more people-more demand-more use. Someone has to pay.
Excellent analysis!
No Romney man am I...
I favor removing the Swiss Cheese loopholes for corporations, while lowering the top line rate.
My math yields a net revenue gain, but simplifying the corporate tax structure -- cutting the gaming out.
I'll have more later -- but traveling now...
Excellent! Do stop back!
Namaste
So, say we lower US corporate tax rates now to be competitive with UK... and then Ireland or Switzerland's are even lower.. should we then lower our tax rate again to remain competitive?
Where does it end?
What you propose is a death spiral where Corporations end paying no tax and the entire burden is shifted entirely to individuals. That's not a society many (including scientists doing R&D) would care to live and work in...
Well... In my experience, it's not as black and white as you suggest... And frankly, I don't care if Mr. read moves Pfizer.
I don't think he can get the deal done -- I think it's all high tax Kabuki theater to him. If we stop the gaming, and lower the rate to 22 percent -- we'd be net ahead.
But I advocate no race to the bottom. That's a false dilemma, in my view.
We just need an overhaul -- haven't had one since 1986, really -- with TEFRA.
Just my $0.02... Do stop back -/ and thanks!
Namaste
Interesting use of the measles vaccine:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/05/15/measles-vaccine-cancer-mayo-clinic/9115363/
I'm eager for your take on the ASCO data released last night.
Hey -- those were abstracts only.
Full data on June 1. I do like Merck's abstract.
But let's wait and see what BMS shows June 2 as to nivolumab.
Namaste
Living the to and fro!
to the point of your posting:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/05/15/227518/putting-profits-over-patriotism.html?sp=/99/337/
Post a Comment