Aren’t you glad you pay Stanley’s taxes
stevo1952
| Posted in General Discussion on
Does it make anyone else angry that Stanley stockholders overwhelming voted to re-incorporate in Bermuda and save $30 million per year in federal income taxes? Nothing has changed except a mailbox in Bermuda.
I know that other companies are doing it and that the law should be changed etc, but as craftsmen I think we should seriously think of boycotting Stanley.
The more of this happens, the more we all have to pay.
What do you think?
Replies
Sorry, I should have said 'Craftspeople'
stevo
Doesn't offend me anymore than the fact that people feel the need to make up new words in an attempt not to offend anyone. The political correctness needs to stop.
crafts·man [kráftsmn ] (plural crafts·men [kráftsmn ]) noun 1. somebody who makes things by hand: somebody who makes decorative or practical objects skillfully by hand
I don't see any mention of gender.
Edited 6/14/2002 4:24:43 PM ET by Tom
Tom, it amazes me that you are outraged by my not wanting to offend women, but an extra $300 million in questionable tax dodges doesn't bother you in the least.
From what I understand of the subject the only thing they are doing is avoiding being taxed twice. I don't have a problem with that.
As far as you trying to keep from offending women if you look the term crafstman it is not gender specific. I happen to think that women are smart enough to realize that and would rather not offend their intelligence by making up words to replace perfectly good ones already in existance.
As a small business owner I'll tell you this.
I'M PROBABLY PAYING FOR ALL THESE MEGA COMPANY TAX DODGERS.
Because if they don't pay thier taxes, WE DO! So, Complain about how much you pay in taxes. The more Companies that do this, the more we'll pay. Fact is the government is growing... and I guess it will continue to, so. Thats life. The money will come from somewere, Stanley says it should come from ME and you.
THEY have loop holes.
I stopped buying Stanley, unless I have to.
john g
Hey, don't worry about saying Craftsmen. It's the correct term and let's be honest here: this is men's work and chicks have no business getting in out way. God gave us shops so we could stop listening to that kind of crap for a few hours each week.
Don't like being called a man? Then get your butt up in the kitchen where it belongs and make some dinner. Or jump into your planer...whichever you prefer you liberal communist lesbian wretch!
Power to Men!
classy...
by the way, I just discovered a feature of the forums. If you click on the username of the poster there is an option in the profile to "ignore posts".
Edited 6/28/2002 8:35:54 PM ET by JEFFN7
I've just read all 54 of these posts continuously and these are the conclusions I've managed to extricate from the sludge my brain has become:
1. The moon landing in '69 never really happened.
2. Elvis is in cahoots with Castro to destabilize rutabaga price supports in Bora Bora.
3.The corporate entity known as "Stanley" is the secret identity of a one - legged hooker from Masapequa, Long Island named "Betty", who may or may not be plotting to do.... something.
Am I way off base? My head hurts. I think i'll go drop some blotter acid so I can feel normal again.
Jallen9301,
Very perceptive of you to glean that information from the messages. I didn't think that any one else would notice it. However you DID miss the identities of the individuals on the grassy knoll opposite the Dallas school book depositiory.
I could elucidate, but I'd then have to kill you.
Rich
It's okay Rich you don't have to worry about me. I'll be in Cuernavaca, Mexico for the next month undergoing extensive margarita/electroshock therapy to make me forget I ever clicked on this cursed thread. Apparently at the mere mention of the name of a certain toolmaking corporation I've been falling into the fetal position, drooling, and muttering "Bermuda" uncontrollably. Wish me luck.
I'm curious how many of the voting sharholders actually own their tools and howmany of them look at anything other than the bottom line.
I'm not so sure that Stanley is the one to be mad at. Free trade is something the U.S. needs more of.
Steve - in Northern California
To me this is the opposite of free trade. Simply changing a corporate address and keeping all other operations the same only to avoid taxes should be illegal.
This is corporate welfare in the worst way.
Well, thats probably a highly debatable subject which is why you're bringing it to the table isn't it. I agree it does seem like Stanley is just using it to improve their bottom line. Personnaly just changing the P.O. box doesn't sound like enough to qualify for the tax break, I would think there would be more to it than just that. My guess would be that this move is because they are already manufacturing the majority of their products outside the U.S. They might have been being taxed twice on the products. I'm no coporate tax lawyer by any means so this is just guess work.
One of the things that really used to gripe me when I was in the Military was the fact that I was a tax payer that was paying a portion of my own wages. Talk about a sweet deal for the govt. Hire somebody, put them in a life or death situation whenever you feel like it and get them to thank you for it by allowing them to pay a portion of their own wages. Talk about slick.
Steve - in Northern California
I was highly considering not buying any more Stanley tools ( current ones that is, I'd keep buying the old hand planes :) ). Now that I'm reading they are simply lowering their taxes on foreign sold items, I guess what they did is ok.
Steve, I've often wondered why people who are paid by tax dollars are taxed. I think the reason is that barely any of the taxes a government employee pays go back to that employee. There's what, 300,000,000 people and thousands of businesses paying taxes. My guess is that when you add it up the amount of money that a government employee pays themself is less than a fraction of a penny.
I also just checked the Stanley website, http://www.stanleyworks.com and it appears the board of directors has scheduled a revote on reincorporating in Bermuda. You may want to check this out.
When people 100 years from now see my work, they'll know I cared. --Matt Mulka
Edited 6/15/2002 7:01:54 PM ET by Matt Mulka
Edited 6/15/2002 7:12:27 PM ET by Matt Mulka
actually, there isn't '300,00,000' people and corporations paying taxes. A huge number of people fall below a certain economic threshold and effectively pay no taxes, or what they do pay is offset by a subsidies and services that they consume, which has the effect of zeroing out their account. This is what really grinds on me when people complain about tax breaks going to the wealthy and not to the poor... the poor don't pay taxes, so any tax break is really a subsidy.
According to the IRS own statistics, the top 10% of earners in the tax system pay 90% of the personal income taxes collected annually. Corporations fare even worse, contrary to the Enron-optics that are applied today. Consider the unfairness of double taxation that shareholders in any company face... the company pays taxes on the income it generates, distributes a dividend to the shareholders (hopefully) and the shareholder pays taxes again on that income. Corporations also pay taxes at higher rates than individuals.
So Stanleys move to Bermuda is poorly timed, granted, but the board and management has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to maximize profits through any legal means at their disposal. As has already been stated, the taxes Stanley is avoiding are to income that is earned through foreign subsidiaries, which will have already been taxed in the operating region where the income was generated. Income from US operations will be taxed appropriately.
Obviously the tax code is way too complex to distill into a couple of paragraphs, that would be silly, but the tax code provides mechanisms for companies, and individuals, to minimize their tax burden in return for spending on capital improvements, education, etc. etc. The legal ways to minimize your tax burden are just that, legal, and serve as a way for the federal, state and local governments to induce specific behaviors that they believe will be of benefit to a few or too many. I'm not going to suggest that there are not tax loopholes that have been inserted through purely political means, that also would be silly, but the point of our federal system of government and taxes is that you look at the whole picture, not snippets here and there. I'm also not suggesting that Stanleys move is for any reason other than tax avoidance, I believe they have been pretty upfront about it as well... I mean who would publicly proclaim they are moving to Bermuda (or the Virgin Islands, or Jersey, or any of the other well known tax havens) for operational reasons. But the fact remains that they do pay taxes and there is no law that prevents them from moving their legal base of incorporation.
As for the revote that someone mentioned in an earlier vote, the vote was overwhelmingly in support of the reincorporation in bermuda, but the board took pause at the controversy and opted to reconsider the issue through another vote.
I am pretty unmoved by the whole issue. After all, we live in a society that values the lack of restriction on individuals and businesses to operate how and where they see fit, providing such operations don't violate laws. Personally, I would rather not have my government impose such restrictions on me.
Edited 6/15/2002 11:20:47 PM ET by JEFFN7
yes but I stuck it out for 20 years and now they are paying me for the rest of my life. :-)
The taxes they are avoiding are the US taxes on the profits they make in non-US countries that have already been taxed by the other countries. They still will pay the same US taxes on US profits.
Why shouldn't they--or any company or individual--take advantage of tax avoidance?
If it helps Stanley to keep factories open here, maintain a competitive price on their products, continue development, be able to give pay raises to their employees or pay dividends out to the stockholders, what's wrong? Why give it to the government?
Stevo,
It doesn't bother me in the least. Stanley never paid a dime of taxes anyway: the end consumers pay all the taxes. The dealers where you buy products, the wholesalers and the manufacturers are just the middle men in the tax collecting scheme. You and all the other consumers will still be paying all the taxes, just the collection entities will change.
Alan
Well said Alan. It's a shame the American public doesn't seem to be able to pick up on this: A corporate tax is simply an increase in the cost-of-goods-sold for the products the corporation produces and it gets passed along to the consumer who buys their products...The really, really sad thing is, because margins are typically calculated on the cost of goods sold, the consumer actually pays more than the tax itself...they pay a profit on it. Liberal logic truly is one of the great mysteries of the universe.
. . .but as craftsmen I think we should seriously think of boycotting Stanley.
What the hell did I do now?
I'm not so sure that Stanley is the one to be mad at.
Especially if nobody will even tell me what I did?
Stanley never paid a dime of taxes anyway . . .
I sure did and do.
OK now I'll do something that will get me into trouble.
I understand that by incorporating, a business becomes a legal entity and has an existence, much like an individual. The difference is that people die but theoretically, a corporation can have an infinite life. If they exist, as an individual legal entity, I think they should pay taxes just like a real person does.
Corporations use roads,and bridges; airports, docks, ports and navigation systems; and numerous governental agencies (eg Immigration or the SEC). If they are obtaining natural resources from publicly owned land (ie USDA Forest Service), they have a responsibility to support the management of those agencies. The government (state and federal) invests significant amounts of money in research (within various agencies and through grants to many universities). The primary beneficiaries of this research are corporations. They utilize police and fire services and the benefits of military protection and security. They utilize the utility infrastructure (sewers, water, etc often established at public expense). Corporations most certainly utilize the court systems and exert influence within the legislative bodies to enact laws favorable to them. They also rely on the existing and future educational system to provide them an educated and skilled workforce. For these benefits/services/entitlements, it is my opinion that they should actually pay something (taxes) to the government.
Until appropriate and fair levies are made to each and every corporation for their use of these services, then it is reasonable to assess them a tax on the income they make.
The funny thing is that corporations sometimes expect to have their cake and eat it too. Several years ago, corporate income taxes in the State of Oregon were reduced (through extensive lobbying). One of the most significant impacts was on the overall educational system, which is now in meltdown. And guess what, now they are complaining that they are having trouble finding skilled workers.
In Monday June 10th, The Oregonian ran the following article (partially reproduced). The headline was "Changes inspired by Enron have fallen flat - Lobbyists appear to have thwarted proposed laws that would have restricted corporate behavior." The first several paragraphs read ... "Six months after the collapse of Enron, a wave of enthusiasm for averhauling the nation's corporate and accounting laws has ebbed, and the toughest proposals for change are all but dead." "A powerful group of lobbyists, playing on partisan disagreement in Congress, appears to have killed efforts to impose tight new controls on corporate conduct." "Bills imposing more stringent accounting standards, changing the tax and accounting treatment of employee stock options, and setting tougher conflict of interest rules for stock analysts and accounting firms have all fallen victim to political gridlock."
So much for the will of the people!
Edited 6/14/2002 10:05:20 PM ET by NIEMIEC1
Stanley, when you blow all the smoke away, the fact remains: Corporations do not "pay" taxes in the conventional sense...they incur a tax expense that inevitably gets baked into the cost of goods sold on the products they sell and this becomes the basis for setting their prices....so, it is the customer that ultimately pays the tax. Why is it seemingly well educated people like lawyers and wood technologists have such a difficult time grasping this obvious reality? When corporate taxes become so burdensome that they cannot raise their prices to cover it, they can't compete with imports without reducing dividends to their stockholders to the point that no one wants to hold their stock...so, the stock goes done and then they become takeover targets for their offshore competition...and there goes some more American jobs. We should all be used to this by now...After all, it's the Democratic way.
Edited 6/14/2002 11:55:27 PM ET by Jon Arno
"...they incur a tax expense that inevitably gets baked into the cost of goods sold on the products they sell and this becomes the basis for setting their prices....so, it is the customer that ultimately pays the tax."
As far as I am concerned (and this is a slight but essential differentiation) it is the consumer of those products and services that ultimately pays the tax. If I choose not to buy the product or use the service, I pay nothing. I do not want to be forced into a coerced system, that requires me to pay for something I do not either receive or want.
Unfortunately, corporate welfare does exist, and even if it didn't, corporations depend on the physical and governmental infrastructure of this country. As such, they have an obligation to support it and pay for it. If they do not contribute their share, then the citizenry is forced to pay those bills. For what I might ask? To provide corporations better opportunity to maximize their profits, to use and abuse the infrastructure (including the environment) and to violate enacted laws?
What I don't understand is "what is so sacred about profit?". At what point in time does humanity take precedence to the corporation?
"When corporate taxes become so burdensome that they cannot raise their prices to cover it, they can't compete with imports without reducing dividends to their stockholders to the point that no one wants to hold their stock...so, the stock goes done and then they become takeover targets for their offshore competition...and there goes some more American jobs."
If a corporation cannot afford to pay their legally obligated taxes (and herein I object to your use of the term "burdensome" because that is a value judgement), then they should change the way they operate. Included in this is salary reduction of corporate officiers and managers. Their income should be entirely dependent on the profitability of the operation (just as it is for a self-employed entrepreneur). Corporations, in my opinion, have a greater obligation to pay for the governmental infrastructure they use over providing a dividend to a limited number of investors. Currently, it seems that dividends have priority.
I further think that the manipulative use of dividend priority to reduce corporate taxes so that the company does not go belly up or off-shore is blackmail. It seems to me that multinational and multi-state corporations are practicing a very viscious game of playing one government against the other so that they obtain undo advantage and subsudized favoritism. Somehow corporations have asserted a believe that people cannot do without corporations (and therein corporations should be favored). The reality is that without people, corporations are worthless and non-existent.
If a company cannot operate at a profit, paying for ALL the costs they incur in doing business, then they should not be in business. Fundamentally, if a product or service has to be subsudized so that this product or service is saleable, it should not be produced.
Economics cannot put a price on intangibles other than by some hocus pocus of what someone in NOW willing to pay for it. In this scenario, only those with money can play the game because money has become some ultimate value. This system gives no rights to future generations or to other living things. Where in ecomomic is there a function within an equation that deals with species extinction? What choice/valuation in economics is given to (for example) fishes preferences to live in a clean and stable river such that they can procreate? Tobacco companies are now just beginning to be forced to assume responsibility for the damaging health issues related to their product. When are the industries, who for decades have been dumping their toxic by-products into the environment with their negative effect on human health, going to begin to assume those responsibilities and costs?
...After all, it's the Democratic way.
I think you have got your political philosophy mixed up Jon ... to me that should read, it's the Republican way!!
And relative to the issue of taxation (raised by another) as a primary cause for the Revolution/separation from Britain, I believe the phrase was "no taxation without representation". It seems to me that for the average citizen of this country, we are fast approaching a similar situation where our elected officials are no longer representing us (the people) and instead are servicing corporations and special interest groups. The central issue, in my mind, regarding the American Revolution was that a small but influential minority of the population wanted to be able to have a say in the operation of the government and to be able to control the destiny of the land and its people. The best way to do this was by establishing a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Those leaders trusted that the general populace had the wisdom to select and run a government for the common well being. The present problem is that the corporations want a government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation; the individual can go screw themselves for all they care as long as the corporations can maximize there profits.
..."If a corporation cannot afford to pay their legally obligated taxes, then they should change the way they operate."
They are Stanley, they are...They're moving offshore.
If a corporation is a legal entity, then it has rights and powers that can not be removed from it. This obviously doens't include the right to vote. But those rights which it posesses must be protected by the law. I assume you would protect your rights in the same way a business does. Do want your existence terminated earlier than you anticipate? Of course not. And if means moving to a nicer more hospitable climate to prolong your life, you would probably move. A corporation's blood is the money flowing through it. If it develops low blood pressure I believe it in its rights to medicate itself in any legal way. Whatever necessary to stay alive. That doesn't mean that I will continue buying that company's products. If they are made in the USA then they will continue to strengthen our economy. If not then nothing's changed, for us.
How does increase this retail price?
Why should there be a law against this?
>>To me this is the opposite of free trade. Simply changing a corporate address and keeping all other operations the same only to avoid taxes should be illegal.
How is this the opposite of free trade? They just freed themselves from some taxes.
I have to agree with RJT. It's not the corporation that is the problem. It's the taxes.
Jase--Is there a better way?
Very interesting Jase, you raise a point I had never considered: Since corporations can't vote, maybe they shouldn't pay any taxes at all...Sounds like taxation without representation, doesn't it?
Jon and Jase,
Well said men.
I need to edit this to be more clear. I am not opposed to paying taxes necessary to provide the infrastructure we as a nation need, (i.e. common defense, etc.).
My father owned his own corporation and worked his tail off to build a very successful engineering firm. When he started making profits at the end of each year guess who stepped in and took most of it away, the government. They didn't earn it, they shouldn't get it.
Edited Portion: My father and his firm already had to pay taxes on the goods they consumed, and services provided, the firm had already been taxed. When the profits are garnished by the government after taxation there is a problem. The mental stance that because someone, or some corporation, makes a profit the national government should take some and distribute the wealth for all to benefit from, is IMHO wrong.
I am sick of the government sticking its hand in the peoples pocket and taking our money. We work hard for it and would like to use it to take care of ourselves. I Don't want the government taking care of me!!!!!
One last thing before we start trashing corporations let's remember who runs them. That's right good old american folks like you and me. Business isn't evil, commerce isn't evil, and generally people aren't either.
Matt-
Edited 6/16/2002 6:51:20 PM ET by MPHARPER
I agree. Taxation of business is evil Matt. It should all come out of personal taxes, such as income tax, or even better from generous donations from rich engineering businessmen. No doubt your father had no need for people educated through taxes spent on schools so that they were smart enough to add up 2 and 2 to get 5. Numeracy and engineering I assume are mutually exclusive. And no doubt your dear old dad might have chosen to build his own roads to his customers locations so as to facilitate delivery of his widgets, or perhaps he just preferred to pay the taxes and let the government take care of that little bit of logistics for him? Ain't it dandy that if you get shot, or smashed up in a car accident the first place they'll take you to is the local cheapy hospital where medical trauma expertise is readily to hand, and by golly, isn't it a surprise that that hospital is funded largely out of,....er,---- taxes, personal and corporate, and business. And how did you guys get a few blokes on the moon, and was it worth it? I'd like to see the list of private donations for that one. Lastly, for now, who are those walley's they send off in green uniforms to 'kick arse' and die for America in far off lands. No doubt those poor bums are the result of private armies raised by corporate titans, yes? Either pay some taxes, or vote for anarchy. Slainte, RJ.
RJFurniture
Edited 6/16/2002 3:29:31 AM ET by Sgian Dubh
Hey Gang, we gather at this site to share the joys of woodworking and probably should get back on topic...But I'm going to risk one last post on this subject, because I think it is the most important social issue of our time.
I don't think any rational person could seriously suggest that taxation should be abolished. In a modern society, there are too many absolutely imperative things that we can only accomplish by acting collectively, like defending the borders and maintaining infrastructure. If we don't remain strong by doing these things, we will inevitably fall to pressures from without. The problem is (at least as I see it...and as Jefferson saw it), if we carry the concept of collective action and taxation to its extreme, we very likely will fall from within.
As was mentioned in an earlier post, when 10% of the people provide 90% of the individually contributed funding, we are placing our future at risk. Punishing success is a strategy that never works, at least not long term...and virtually every society that has tried it is now an historical footnote. It is easy to cite examples of overpaid corporate executives, the brats of wealthy families and lottery winners...but by and large, those who make up the overtaxed 10% in our society belong to that most successful group because of their contribution to society; they have given to society a service or product of value...They are ambitious, goal oriented and incentive driven people. We desperately need them and the businesses and corporations they command.
The question is, how much of a handicap can we place on them "for the common good" before we destroy the common good? At this point, I think we all have our separate opinions. Personally, I think collective action funded by taxation is both necessary and beneficial, but "progressive" tax structures are not. A flat percentage tax already results in the wealthy providing a relatively greater portion of the funding, and contributions to the "social good" beyond that point should be voluntary...through foundations and grants, where frankly I think it is better managed than it would be by the federal government.
I also think that corporate taxes are a subterfuge that simply masks a further tax borne by consumers in a way that doesn't appear on their tax return. I think it is a fair tax in that the users of the corporation's products pay it and pay it on a flat basis...but in a global economy, it is a dangerous way to fund domestic programs. It places our corporations at too much of a disadvantage relative to corporations based in countries that do not handicap their domestic industries, but actually subsidize them.
...And with that, I will step down and carry my soapbox home. I guess we are all entitled to our opinion and at the same time obliged to live with the results of whatever opinion is held by the majority of us...because that is the democratic way (small "d".)
Jon:
You are really scaring me! You made the following statement:
"...but by and large, those who make up the overtaxed 10% in our society belong to that most successful group because of their contribution to society; they have given to society a service or product of value...They are ambitious, goal oriented and incentive driven people. We desperately need them and the businesses and corporations they command."
Let me make a few comments on individual parts --
"because of their contribution to society"
Please tell me the contribution to society made by John D. Rockefeller! What I have heard and read of him was that he was a ruthless business man that created an incredible empire mainly by surpressing and destroying as many competitors as possible. And then again there was that little labor dispute in Colorado when striking laborers were slaughtered on his orders because they had the nerve to not accept his benevolent pitance of a wage. I think that wonderful industrial leaders in the past 150 years have more or less openly advocated social inequality and some have been extremely bigoted and racist.
"they have given to society a service or product of value..."
Not necessarily. In many cases, they have cheated and defrauded the inventors and innovators of new and unique products and distinctive services. What Edison did to Tessla was almost outright thievery.
I suppose you could say that the Southern plantation owners provided a valued product -- the cost was hundred years of enslavement of human beings, a complete suppression of any society or culture those individuals might have had, and a horrific effect on the societies of West and Central Africa.
Gold is a valued commodity. The desire for gold in the Black Hills led to the instances like Wounded Knee and the almost complete destruction of Lakota society and people. More than 100 years after that rush for gold, the native Lakota peoples have extreme levels of poverty and alcoholism; their young men and women have one of the highest suicide rates anywhere on the planet. Add to that the annihilation of the native peoples in the Sierras of California.
The question I might raise is to which society did they provide this benefit and at what cost?
"We desperately need them and the businesses and corporations they command."
What do you mean WE. And further how can you presume that we truly do need them? Do I truly need the industrial pollutants they spew into the atmosphere? Do I truly need the cheap and shoddy products being offered that exploit human beings in the production phases, and do I need these products clogging land fills with out any concern for these product's sustainability or the ability to recycled?
Are you assuming that these individuals are somehow better than other people? Have we as a society become so shallow that a persons qualities and worth is wholly determined by how much money they have accumulated? .... especially if it negates contributions of arts and literature, religious or ethical convictions, or plain human compassion. I personally would prefer 10,000 Mother Teresas to one Kenny "boy" Lay
From my hometown, there was a man who made literally millions of dollars and he was most certainly in the top 10% of income earners in his time. He was most certainly "ambitious, goal oriented and incentive driven" providing both valuable commodities (whiskey) and services (prostitution) -- His name was Alfonso Capone. By your standards of value and worth, he seems to me to be a societal asset.
If these people are so valued, maybe we should give them, the top 10%, some level of prefered status such that they do get a break on the taxes they are now mandated to contribute. We can call them Alpha's! but what about the poor guy who is at the 11.00001% level. How bout we stick it to him -- after all he is only a Beta. What are we supposed to do with the lower 10% -- these are likely old people, the disabled and the mentally ill, the poorly educated? They obviously don't contribute much to society and are a drain on society forcing the Alpha's and Beta's to pay more taxes. Hell -- why not just eliminate them. Homeless individuals are such an eyesore on the streets and those people begging at intersections are such a bother!
"and at the same time obliged to live with the results of whatever opinion is held by the majority of us...because that is the democratic way"
Maybe Jon, a majority of people might be so "wise" as to hold your opinions about the value of the super rich; these who are such talented and gifted people. Why not, through the democratic process, give these individuals carte blanche to act unencumber in pursuit of their goals. We could either give them status above the law or even create an oligarchy. And with that, the benefits of their wisdom and generosity would bless the land and all the peoples of the earth.
But does it really matter? Currently more than 50% of the population does not particpate in the election process. Likely it is because a lot of these people feel that the current political duopoly does not address issues important to them and/or that the candidates have been already chosen by the special interests of wealth.
All governments rise and fall and eventually become a footnote in history. I am afraid that the footnote for this one will be -- the citizenry was willing to sell its freedoms for a few cheap trinkets.
Niemiec1,
An interesting tirade. But you must recognize that you are painting all with a single brush: you condemn by association.
Mind you, I'm not going to defend corporations, CEOs or the robber barons of the nineteenth--or any--century. I will point out, however, that the people you attacked are in the news and the history books because they are, in large degree, aberrations. For every ruthless and conscienceless robber baron you can name there are hundreds of people who have grown wealthy through the application of their own talents and energies, and who obey the laws and the rules of a civil and charitable society.
For example, you didn't mention Andrew Carnegie, Westinghouse or Bell. All grew extremely wealthy through hard work--and then spent the last years of their lives giving most of it away. (You've heard of Carnegie Hall, I'm sure.)
You could have mentioned Henry Ford: he was neither all good nor all bad, but, like most people, had good and bad traits. Did you know that he was once sued by a couple of the largest shareholders of Ford Motors? He was sued by the Chrysler brothers (yes, those Chryslers) because, in their eyes, he set the prices of his cars too low! Remember it was Ford that paid his workers roughly double the going wage for the jobs they did; it was Henry that set up night classes for his workers; it was Ford that wanted to pay his workers and price his cars so that his workers (and anyone else who earned a decent living) could afford to buy the products they produced--a very radical idea at the time.
The wealthy are no different than any other class of people: there are good ones and bad ones. Among the rich you will find the John Rockefellers, but you will also find people who genuinely care about the environment, the working class, charity, and improving the lot of all.
I'm sure there are woodworkers who may be fairly described as among the scum of the earth. There are no doubt woodworkers who will lie, cheat and steal; no doubt a woodworker has committed murder. But that doesn't mean you would lie, cheat and steal--or murder (though you will, obviously, engage in character assassination).
Alan
This is a forum where the professional woodworkers are largely self-employed entrepreneurs. The $300MM that the Stanley Corp. has now effectly dodged is going to have to come out of somebody's pocket and likely, it is the small businesses that do not have the legal advantages of multinational corporations. It fries my arse that Jon can continue to advocate corporate welfare and dodges calling it free enterprise; especially when a lot (most) of the forum participating business owners spent one incredible amount of hard work to just get their heads above water and are often marginally protected were an illness or serious injury to occur. I cannot comprehend how anyone concerned about individual freedom and quality of life can align themselves and promote corporatism without directly profiting from affiliation with those organizations or being dependent on them as the primary source of their income. What might be good for corporations is not necessarily what is good for small businesses -- I think individuals ought to be considering that difference very seriously.
To me multinational corporations are establishing some neo-feudalism concerned only with their own self-interests. They have no allegiance to any particular country, treat employees as disposable commodities to be exploited, and have no concerns for environmental quality or diversity (as there is no long term when quarterly profits have priority). During the Medieval period when feudalism was supreme, they at least fed the peasants during famines; today's large business policies can the poor bastards and expect them to either fend for themselves, or rely on governmental programs which these same companies are attempting, everyway possible, not to support.
As an entrepreneur, not only do I have to worry about the government, I have to worry about bloody corporations; and I really have to be concerned about the policies of governments enacted at the behest of some corporation or group of corporations. It has been said that "What is good for GMC is good for America". I have some very negative feelings about such statements because corporations, through their decisions can literally destroy local community businesses and a community's way of life (as exemplified by Wal-Mart).
I don't care what century you are dealing with, wealthy and super-rich individuals, in my opinion, can only amass such wealth either ruthlessly and/or quasi-legally. The Jed Clampett (sp?) way to wealth and the fat life in Beverly Hills is a total myth. Henry Ford was mentioned with all his supposed good deeds. It is interesting that you failed to mention the workers killed by local and Ford hired private police forces in the Detroit labor strikes against Ford Motors. If I remember correctly > 25 unarmed men were gunned down for seeking better working conditions and increased wages.
Sure it is wonderful that the robber barons of the last century finally established charitable funds, and funded universities. In my mind, they were attempting to save their eternal souls by basically buying indulgences. Luther was appalled by the formalized practices that existed in his day; I would hate to guess how much of the funding for the Gothic cathedrals of Europe came from the pockets of wealthly lords and merchants attempting to buy attonement for their sins. By and large, these gifts were provided by individuals; I fail to see that level of generosity from today's corporations. When they have a windfall, they don't provide something for the common good -- they pay an extra dividend to the stockholders or more likely provide bonuses to the corporate hierarchy.
It is also interesting that you would seem to feel that these business moguls were such fine fellows. What you seem to be overlooking are the extensive marketing and public image campaigns run by the corporations to create a positive image of their founders. These companies know that if you repeat something often enough, people will actually believe it is true. And beyond that, I would expect their biographies have been sanitized and improved upon -- just like the myth of Geo. Washington chopping down the cherry tree and imploring that he cannot tell a lie. Hell the way corporations have access/control of the media, over time, I bet GM could make Idi Amin into a real wholesome fellow (albeit when he has a BBQ, some of the invitees are actually the meal), and Attila as an adventerous Boy Scout leader.
And getting back to the Stanley Corporation, if the company does move offshore, then I think it only right that the corporate officials do likewise. They should move to the country where their corporation is now located, move their families and homes as well and renounce their US citizenship. It seems to me that unless the corporate officiers are living offshore and/or that a mojority of their investors are offshore citizens, it should be otherwise considered nothing less than fraud and tax evasion.
And when I buy a tool, it becomes a tax deductible expenditure and some expenditure that I pass on to my client (actually distributed across multiple clients). I could care less about the few pennies within this purchase that I might save by a corporation's tax avoidant actions. The only one that truly has to incur the cost of the direct purchase of a corporate product of Stanley's is a DIY'er or a recreational consumer.
Sorry I have been out of town for a while.
Quite a discussion that I stirred up, but I guess that is the point.
I know taxation sucks and I wish I didn't have to pay them, but I do.
I agree with those of you that commented about robber barons etc. Tax breaks should not be for only those that have the money and clout to exploit them.
Unfortunately, it is the american way and while it may be legal, it is still shameful bot for Stanley and for a congress that allows it to happen.
Again, I am going to stop buying Stanley and would encourage everyone else to do likewise unless Stanley doesn't re-incorporate.
stevo
lot's of anger in this message. Perhaps we can keep this debate centered around this century? Yes, lot's of people did bad things because they were greedy, and there will certainly be more of them. But as was pointed out, they are outnumbered by those who contribute positively to society.
by way of clarification, the IRS puts you in the 'top 10%' if you have a combined family income of somewhere around $160-170. Excuse me for not knowing the exact figure, but it's in that range. So think about that next time you hear someone *itching about the "wealthy". I can say with absolute certainty that $170k a year doesn't leave a lot left over for Bentleys, private jets, and villas in St. Tropez after you take out mortgages, essentials, bills, car payments, insurance, college saving, retirement planning, etc.
PS- Carnegie Hall? how about Carnegie Mellon University as an enduring symbol of philantrophic pursuit, or Stanford University, or the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation (Hewlett-Packard), or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (working to eradicate malaria, aids, and malnoutrition).... the Moore Foundation (Gordon Moore, a founder of Intel)... the list of charitable foundations whose primary endowement came from a wealthy individual/family is extensive, and without them there would be little private philantrophy.
Edited 6/18/2002 7:49:54 PM ET by JEFFN7
Many times, arguments have been made by economists that corporations should not pay taxes. Instead, the profits should be paid out to the shareholders and the shareholder will be the ones to pay the taxes. That, of course, is what happens with partnerships and sole proprietorships.
In this case, I go back to my statement that the taxes Stanley is avoiding are taxes on profits overseas, which, in most cases, have already been taxed by the foreign countries.
Another point that many don't seem to understand that the corporation management's primary obligation is to the shareholders. If you invest in their shares or bonds, you want the management to do everything to ensure a steady stream of dividends. A key component of maintaining competitiveness is minimizing costs, and taxes are a portion of costs. The management works in the interest of the shareholders and that is why a shareholder vote is required for the type of change that Stanley wants to make.
Finally, as I understand it, the board has set aside the vote for a reason I don't recall. A new vote will need to be scheduled.
How interesting that only some people understand that (in effect) double taxing a company is bad business. Stanley pays local taxes (so there's your support of fire, police, etc.), contributes to the local economy where they have plants through purchase of services, goods, etc. They support the infrastructure (roads, airports, etc.) through payment of transportation fees (which have local and over-the-road taxes worked into them), and if they have their own delivery trucks, a myriad of state and local taxes to keep the trucks on the road.
Very simply, the ONLY taxes they are trying to avoid is the tax on over seas profits which, in many cases, have already been taxed at least once. How many taxes do they have to pay before you all, who feel "put upon" by this, are satisfied?
Frankly, coporate taxes on overseas profits are repressive. Why do you think that really big companies have subsidiaries that keep all of the off-shore profits out of the US completely so they aren't taxed? Did you know that happens? Really!!! If the money doesn't touch the US - it can't be taxed. Better be pissed off at: GM, Ford, Chrysler, John Deere, Microsoft, etc., etc. THEY ALL have tax avoidance schemes that are legal. Stanley is re-incorporating off-shore rather than setting up a series of foreign companies or holding companies - which is done all the time to avoid taxes.
As far as the local politics of reducing local taxes to retain businesses or national politics, why are you upset with the corporations? As long as they're not doing anything illegal, that's the free enterprise system. Why aren't you upset with the politicians that YOU elected? They're the real root of the problem. They'll roll over for the first lobbyist who promises them a big campaign contribution. Boycott politicians - not businesses...
Rather than boycotting politicians, I would rather see everyone embrace politics by simply voting.
Nothing personal folks, but this is a stupid discussion. We have a bunch of half truths being thrown around covering economics, taxes, the lazyness of people from New Britian, CT, causes of the American revolution and the ability of fish to have sex. Wow
please...woodworking is our common interest let's share and enjoy. If you want to get serious, let talk about the millions with HIV/Aids in Africa.
just so I'm clear on your position, BG- we should all go back to discussing woodworking unless we're going to bandy about an issue of truly dire global import-preferably one that happens to be the particular issue of truly dire global import of your choice?
just checking.....
Gee Mitch, I'm sorry, I did not make my position very clear. I do not want to suggest or dominate the discussion with my topics. I joined a woodworking discussion because (stupid me) I wanted to learn more about woodworking. The other topics being discussed I have studied for about 40 years now and have a deep appreciation for the complexity of the issues.
For instance, it's difficult to hear where people are comming from unless you also understand the two opposing theologies of why we are here on this earth. Also, it is difficult to understand the issues of taxes without understanding econometric modeling and how state sponsorship provides infrastructure which causes our quality of life to improve.
From a historical perspective, "taxation without representation" was a slogan used in the 1750's in England against the 'Closure laws'. The Closure Laws, you will recall, provided voting rights to landowners only. Also, England had just passed laws that outlawed Slavery...so what was the American inspiration for the revolution...I personally don't know. However, 'Politics' is the art of dividing and conquering the masses. As long as the people are divided on the issues politicans have power.
Beyond all those issues Mitch, it is important to remember that soon all of us will no longer be here. The very best we can hope for is that somone will say a prayer for us when were gone. Were doing okay despite all the strong feelings to the contrary. Sixty years ago over 45% of the homes in America did not have running water. Today our garbabge disposers eat better than 30% of the worlds population.
Unfortunately, economics, taxes, politics, etc. are empherical sciences with unintended consequences. Fortunately, we have lots of diversity to keep those unintended consequences from going to far.
So, my position, Mitch is there are a billion sights on the Internet with a significant number of chat opportunities. Very few can tell me which is the best table saw or how to sneek it past my wife (sigh).
Diversity and talk is good but lets not loose our perspective, there are life an death issues out there, these are not
My parents just got back from spending 18 months in South Africa and Namibia. They were witnesses first hand to the AIDS epidemic and they believe that the problem is the absolute lack of morals among the people, especialy those who are struggling to survive. They are heart broken and wish they could help all the people suffering.
They believe the answer to the problem is to teach the people to live moral lives with fidelity, but it will take a few generations before the epidemic would be over.
On, a more relelvant subject.... does anyone know where I could find ideas for pioneer style or old country style chairs?
Thanks for the help.
Matt-
One item you seem to be missing is that a corporation is an entity that is made up of people. Those people making up the corporation have the same rights that you seems to think only you have (as one of the people). The government of the people represent the people that comprise the corporations also.
As for your argument of corporations using the infrastructure and services of the country so they should pay taxes. I would argue that they are the only service providers in the country. Without companies there would be no economy (unless you think the russian and cuban economy were viable alternatives) and thus no way to supply the infrastructure you think they should pay for.
All taxes eventially get to the consumer.
Any company not seeking to minimize their costs is doing a disservice to themselves, their employees and to their customers.
It is also without a doubt that Stanley will pay US taxes, just probably at a reduced rate.
Yes, I heard about that, and yes I was very angry, frankly. I myself will not purchase any Stanley product, be it hardware, tools, nail guns, etc. From what I have read and been told by ex-Stanley employees, the Stanley Works of New Britain, CT has a "country-club" atmosphere, full of sluggish, non-reacting do-nothings and low innovators. The company is in dire need to trim its abundant "fat" to be more profitable. Rather than work from within to improve, it has chosen the quick and easy way to fix its problems. You can argue economic theory all you want people. Truth is, if something smells bad, it probably is.
Edited 6/14/2002 9:56:15 PM ET by JOSEPH
I think that the American colonies declared their independance and fought the Revolutionary War partly because of taxes. They didn't like to give thier hard earned money to the king.
Frankly I feel the same way. I am sick and tired of having to pay Uncle Sam for everything I do. The govenment needs to get out of the peoples' and businesses' pockets.
Matt-
Govenment for the people, by the people, and of the people. Put the people first.
Yes I will boycott all Stanley products. Another poster suggested,
"why not?" why shouldn't companies take advatage of off shore tax avoidence mailbox's? Because then ALL companies could do it and then only workers will be paying for our government. Good or not I'd rather
be living here then elsewhere. I emailed Stanlet weeks ago over this and haven't answered their reply yet.
BTW I was looking at a few Stanley plane's and instead bought 2 Steve Knight wood planes. A jointer and a smoother. And they just showed up today. :-)
Like it has been said before, ALL workers pay ALL the taxes. Corporations do not pay taxes, they simply collect it and redistribute it back to the government, in the form of increased prices to the consumer.
I admire a corporation which does its best to reduce its bottom line. Tax avoidance is only an example. You say they use government services? No. It is the workers (from corporate to blue colar) that use those services, and it is those workers who pay the taxes in the form of payroll taxes. And no, the corporation does not pay that percentage of worker's payroll taxes, they only distribute it. The more a corporation must pay in payroll taxes, the less the corporation will be able to use for wages.
If you dislike corporations and rich people so much, then try and get a job from a poor person.
BTW, I would buy from Stanley more often if they would bring back the quality of tool they had when they were making their bedrock planes.
So in other words, we (The Feds) should stop taxing all corporations and raise the money needed to run the government from an increase in our (the people) income tax? Ultimatly it all does come from our pockets anyway.
Ok, I'm all for it. Now how is it going to be impliminated?
But until it is changed, all business should be paying taxs.
BTW I am not anti-business or anti-rich. Anti-greed yes.
I resent having my pocket picked clean to overpay already grossly overpaid ball players. Down with the Yes network.
BTW-BTW because I didn' want to buy a Stanley plane I purchased
2 made in the USA planes. One a jointer, the other a smoother.
Good old fashioned wood planes from Steve Knight. What beauties.
The current method of taxation in this country is really broken. You nearly need a PhD to fill out a 1040, and an army of accountants if you are a corporation. The way we taxes (which is on income) should be eliminated and replaced with a consumption tax. There is already a movement, and a proposal in Congress. It only needs to come to the floor, and the House Ways and Means committe refuses to bring it before the commitee for vote. The details of this proposal is a http://www.fairtax.org. This would completely substitute our current taxes system with something truly fair. Something that rewards success, but doesn't hinder progress, doesn't punish the middle class. It is also self-throttling and will keep a check on government spending. As the economy grows or shrinks, so does the tax revenue, and thus so does government spending accordingly.
BTW^3, I would love a Steve Knight plane. Kudos on that purchase! Just waiting for that penny bank to fill up, or my competition to go away on eBay.
competition?
What do you sell?
Thanks George
Thanks Richard.. that confirms my thoughts.
Steve - in Northern California
I cannot (and out of common sense, will not), add to much more to this disussion other than to say that as a shareholder of Stanely, who recently received a mailing about this, the amount is not 30 million that they'd save.
It's 300 MILLION in taxes.
Just a little food for thought there, folks.
Jason, are you suggesting that, if the Democrats keep raising corporate taxes, pretty soon it's going to get to be big money?
Businesses do not pay taxes. They never have and never will. The taxes everyone thinks they pay are in the markup their goods and you and I pay them when we purchase their wares.
It would make this country much more competative if business did not "pay taxes." Their products would be much cheaper and we could get a larger market share overseas.
Business paying taxes is an illution and is brought out at election time to garner votes from those who do not think things through.
Shouldn't we be mad at the people that imposed the tax?
But, don't get me started on taxes. 11 scores and 6 years ago I thought we revolted against tyranny and taxation without representation. What has happened to this spirit??
PlaneWood by Mike_in_Katy
PlaneWood
Mike, I'm no history buff and I should probably do some research but.... I think I remember that the current (at least Federal) tax system was devised to support the War effort and was to be discontinued once the war was over. Of course, there have been few times since then that we have not been involved in a war of some sort somewhere. I think the war on drugs will never end.
This then means that the tax system has been forever legitimized and we, on our own doing, put ourselves into this position. Obviously, very few feel this way, myself included. So, I'm guessing that the only way to eliminate taxes is to take it upon ourselves to eliminate the need for internal wars on drugs, crime, etc. and return our foreign investments to U.S. soil. Of course, we would have to end all foreign trade since protecting that often requires military action. I think its pretty idealistic to ever think that any of that will ever happen so we pay taxes so that we can have the things that many countries just dream about. Of course this makes some people in those countries jealous and the result is things like Terrorism. I classify it, (terrorism) as a jealous act since for the life of me I cannot see any other reason for it.
I too have a deep concern over our taxation system, but it is the way it is managed. My head literally spins when I try to read a tax law so if its ignorance of the law that causes me to overpay my taxes then that's certainly a category I can easily fit into. This brings us back to Stanley. They have the folks that have figured out the tax laws and know exactly what they should be paying and how to reduce their taxation by taking advantage of the laws that we voted on but never understood. Humm, I'm feeling a bit stupid at this point..
Have a nice weekendSteve - in Northern California
What self-respecting woodworker buys today's Stanley products, Stanley hasn't made a decent tool in decades. The money I spend buying Stanley products goes to the guy on eBay that I'm buying the vintage tool from.
I just went to Home Depot to buy a barrel lock and a few clothes hooks. I wanted brass and went to the old standby Stanley. Well, at over $2 per pop I thought they would be ok- after all they are Stanley, good ole USA products- right? Nope, made in China but at made in USA prices. Stanley- forgetaboutit!
The top 10% of American's have 99% of the networth (with 98% of wealth resting in the hands of the top 1% I do believe). Don't worry about the tax rate for those people, almost all of their wealth is gained through stock ownership, which is taxed at 20% (long term capital gains). Then you can move into tax free Muni Bonds and pay almost nothing if you have a big nest egg (this might sound like the voice of experience?) or buy yourself a balanced stock portfolio and wait for long term gains to kick in (only a year of ownership required).
A gold star to the person who posted in effect that American's demand a certain level of service from the government and the government has the ability to get that money from someone. Current estimate of the move of corporations offshore is $1600 per year for each American in lost tax revenue, this number is going up.
My favorite arguments are from people who don't want the government to do anything! But the government did all the funding for the Internet, the road systems, the elementary school you went to, the college you went to, almost all the basic research for every scientific discovery in the 20th century, the safety net of medical and social services and most likely the golf course you use... but they should leave me alone!!! Except of course when you want them to pick up the bill for the services you use.
This stuff about ... some economists says something about killing corporate taxes... all taxes from personal taxes... flat tax rate... who cares if all American corporations are moved offshore. There are crackpots in every field and I don't think those changes can be passed into law (so who cares). Maybe the people with access to the politicians (IE the rich) like a huge and complex tax code that has more corporate welfare than welfare for the poor (you did catch the numbers of the recent farm bill didn't you?)?
Great argument. So much passion, so little logic and facts. Thanks for letting me put me ignorant two cents into the game. Just remember, 42% of American's believe they will be in the top 1% of wealth within 2 years!
"And when I buy a tool, it becomes a tax deductible expenditure..."
Really? I'm betting that you have to pay a state, county, or municipality business tax based on the business equipment that you own (business assets). So, while you're deducting the tool (either one time or amortized), you're paying a business tax on that same item. Ain't no free tax lunches.
Where I live, you pay a "gross receipts" tax. This is not a sales tax. It is a tax on the gross amount of money received by the business and NOT on sales. You the business decide whether you're going to pass this cost on to the customer. Guess what? EVERY business chooses to pass this cost on to the customer even though they don't have to. Now isn't that a tax dodge? Making the customer pay the businesses gross receipts tax?
That's basically the same thing that is happening with business income taxes. You just seem to want to ignore that fact, and pretend that businesses pay taxes in the same way a salaried person pays taxes - on the gross amount of money earned. If you're a business and you don't add the cost of money into your rates, then you should get a better accountant or get a better understanding of business.
As for the rest of your rant....ROTFLMAO. Your understanding of business is, to say the least, underwhelming. Oh, and that nasty Henry Ford...let's see, there's Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, the Ford Foundation, and Greenfield Village...just to name three small things that the Fords have done. Things that you seemed to have conveniently missed because, well, I suppose you couldn't make your specious point very well if you were forced to present a balanced picture of the robber barrons.
Speaking of robber barrons. Let's turn our jaundiced eye on the politicos who think that redistributing wealth is the answer to happiness in America.
well said.
"And when I buy a tool, it becomes a tax deductible expenditure..."
duh, every legitimate expense is essentially tax deductable... it serves to reduce your EBITDA, or rather the basis upon which income taxes are applied. Unless of course the tool you buy is really a capital acquisition, in which case the expense effect is distributed over the life of the tool (according to the appropriate depreciation schedule).
My only suggestion is that you take a primer on corporate accounting, or get a competent accountant to explain it, in order to understand the esoteric mechanics behind Stanley Toolworks strategy in this area. As for the whole robber baron thing, what can anyone say to you? In your extremist view, it's a binary issue with corporations being bad, the people that run them evil, and the 'average guy' getting screwed. Of course, where your argument utterly fails is when the effect of employee ownership through mutual funds, 401k, pension plans, and direct stock ownership is taken into consideration. In effect, the 'average guy' owns a piece of the pie and is, in your view, then culpable of the evils perpetuated on society by corporations.
Interesting side note, Karl Marx argued that the economic part of any society is the most fundamental aspect of that society. All societies must produce their means of substistence, and that production process consisted of 2 groups of actors: those who own the production capacity, and those who don't. Invariably, Marx's thesis is that capitalism would collapse due to its inherent contradicition, leading to revolution and a socialist state where the workers owned the means of production. This is, of course, a society without private property. But what is really interesting about this is that Marx never considered that the workers would own a part of the production process, which is of course represented by mutuals funds, pension plans, etc.
to the gentleman that responded with "10% of the people owning 95% of the wealth", your point is? I don't recall anyone suggesting that the distribution of wealth is equal, if that is the system you want I am sure that Cuba and North Korea would let you in. As for the 10% wealth being represented in stock wealth, that is just plain incorrect on 2 points, first and foremost, you fail to consider real estate holdings, whether they be single family homeownership or multi-unit property. Secondly, you must not have read that comment I posted about the 10% category being, and this is from the IRS, income earners of around $170k a year. That is a lot of middle class families.
There is an editorial in the June 26th issue of "Investor's Business Daily" on their issues and insights page, explaining the dilemma that a lot of American Company's face and why they're considering moving off shore.
It is the same reason the Canadian health system is sick and that there has been a tremendous brain drain from Europe and Asia to the US.
Unless we fix our tax code, we will experience the same drain, but it will be a Company drain not a brain drain. As stated in the editorial, there is a reason that the merger between Chrysler and Mercedes became Daimler Chrysler, not Chrysler Daimler.
I agree. We should boycott their products and if that doesn't work take more drastic action!
Woodworkers Unite!
Stanley is probably selling planes directly to Osama these days. I knew they were rats the moment then went to plastic handles. I'm pretty sure you can burn in hell just for that...
JM,
This is the best post yet.
I love it.
Stevo
To many posts to read so forgive me if this has already been said.
Just because a company opens operations in a different company does not mean it saves on US taxes. Products sold here are subject to our taxes, no matter were the company is based. If you think Sony doesn't pay any taxes because it is a Japanese company, your misinformed.
Considering free trade: All societies are successful to the degree that they have free trade. Societies without free trade wither, suffer and ultimately fail.
Individuals and companies are free, within the confines of our laws, to conduct their business in any manner they deem fit. If some individuals dislike this, I think they will remain unhappy.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled