[QUOTE=tugsailor;169094]I’d rather have some flat out protectionism for national security and jobs requiring 1/3rd of all exports and imports to move on US flag ships. That costs the government nothing. Of course Americans will pay an extra dime at Walmart for the latest $99 toy from China but that’s ok with me.
Or we could require that all Chinese export goods enter the US at Guam. The Jones Act trade could take over from there.[/QUOTE]
dream on…foreign ships are now thoroughly entrenched in the global logistics supply chain and no one is going to throw a monkey wrench into that massive machine…the great giveaway to foreign ships began in earnest in the 60’s and by the 80’s it was too far along to ever hope to roll it back.
the very best the US can ever hope for now is preference cargoes and the Jones Act trades.
and I don’t care if it is six ships or sixty, all US flagged vessels deserve to be protected…PERIOD!
[QUOTE=lm1883;169098]It’s like MSP. Our tax dollars going to Copenhagen or Stockholm instead of staying here.[/QUOTE]
that is a separate argument to make and I wished to hell ALL US flagged ships were owned by US operators. That has been another massive giveaway!
.
[QUOTE=c.captain;169093]
and you might also want to read this
and then tell us how these ships and their crews are not losing employment and income now?
.[/QUOTE]
“The turbines will be shipped by Intermarine’s Ocean Freedom, a specialized U.S.-Flag heavy lift vessel operating between the Ports of Philadelphia and Houston. These shipments support 36 steady jobs for skilled American mariners.”
can anyone explain how this foreign build non Jones Act vessel operates between Philly and Houston.
[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;169104]can anyone explain how this foreign build non Jones Act vessel operates between Philly and Houston.[/QUOTE]
it doesn’t…it lifts cargo out of those two ports but does not transport cargo between them
[QUOTE=tugsailor;169094]Won’t most of those Union Mariners just go back to the hall and wait for their turn to ship again?
The budget, and probably the losses, of the ex/Im bank is too big just to preserve the jobs on only six ships.
I’d rather have some flat out protectionism for national security and jobs requiring 1/3rd of all exports and imports to move on US flag ships. That costs the government nothing. Of course Americans will pay an extra dime at Walmart for the latest $99 toy from China but that’s ok with me.
Or we could require that all Chinese export goods enter the US at Guam. The Jones Act trade could take over from there.[/QUOTE]
If these jobs are lost it doesn’t matter if the workers that lose them go back to the hall, report to the unemployment office, manage to displace someone else, or just go home, the jobs are still lost.
And it’s not just the ships, GE is planning to ship 500 jobs overseas including 80 jobs here in Maine. The winners here are foreign workers and the losers are American workers.
As far as shipping 1/3 on U.S. bottoms, that’s a pipe dream, the EX-IM Bank is far from perfect but according to Adam Smith, in a perfect market society workers should be earning just enough to stay alive and not a penny more.
[QUOTE=lm1883;169338]I don’t think that EXIM is a real factor here. First China has devalued the Yuan and will continue to do so, thus Boeing moving manufacturing there makes financial sense. Second, Chinese manufacturing is cratering. Would you expect Beijing purchase 300 airplanes without their workers getting a piece of the action. I doubt it. The article is good, and it’s convenient to blame EXIM, but I think it’s a reach.
In fact WalMart is demanding 2% reduction in what their Chinese suppliers are charging because of the devaluation.[/QUOTE]
My understanding is that Boeing and Airbus are in tight competition to sell airplanes in China. But what the Chinese Government wants long-term is to make their own airplanes and to build up their own aerospace industry. This deal with Boeing will enable them to acquire the know-how they are looking for.
As far as the EX-IM Bank, it seems to me a lot of this stuff is "you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours. Give us a low priced loan, and we will throw your district a few bones in the form of jobs. Cut their subsidies, they’ll teach you a lesson. It’s not supposed to work that way but looks like it does.
[QUOTE=lm1883;169098]The loans in your article are going to a Spanish company that is offshoring profits gained on the American taxee back to Madrid. It’s like MSP. Our tax dollars going to Copenhagen or Stockholm instead of staying here.[/QUOTE]
The American operation must pay taxes on the money earned here. If the profits after taxes go back to Spain so what? The only people that affects are the share holders, regardless of what country the parent company is in. If you own an international index fund you own some of that parent company and thus you benefit from their profits.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;169360]The American operation must pay taxes on the money earned here. If the profits after taxes go back to Spain so what? The only people that affects are the share holders, regardless of what country the parent company is in. If you own an international index fund you own some of that parent company and thus you benefit from their profits.[/QUOTE]
If the American operation prefers to pay taxes to Spain the people running the “American” corporation should move their butts to Spain. They should not sit in the USA and claim to be “American”. There are enough loopholes in the USA corporate tax rate to make the effective tax rate one of the lowest in the world. If they do not even want to pay that tax rate they should lose the right to call themselves “American” when in fact they are non-taxpaying leeches undeserving of citizenship.
[QUOTE=lm1883;169362]When the profits go back to Spain they are not held in a U.S. Bank, this is a form of capital flight. How much can a corp. minimize that taxable income? More importantly should the company default we, meaning you and I, are on the hook for that. There are plenty of available avenues for private financing and incentives and would rather that corporations use them.
See, the overall financial picture gets even more skewed when you add the political element. Like KC says it becomes almost extortion when these companies threaten to move jobs if their demands aren’t met. There are also those that would push a bad deal just so they could get a few jobs in their district and secure reelection at the expense of the public at large. Sorry, I don’t care for the system and would prefer it to remain in the private sector where it belongs.[/QUOTE]
The issue is that in the system we have today public and private sectors are already interwoven. It’s not a system where you can just prune off the non-free market parts and leave the rest. In the case of the EX-IM if it is believed that it is interfering with free markets then some questions should be asked who is going to get hurt if funding is reduced or ended. These small shipping companies may be irreparably damaged and people are going to lose there jobs. What’s going to happen to GE? Maybe their stock will drop a nickle.
It reminds me of the 2008 crash. The government couldn’t shovel taxpayer money at the banks fast enough. We were told that the banks were too big to fail and if they did fail it would damage the economy. Who set up the system so it worked that way? Not too much preaching about the free market then. Seems like the big money boys only believe in the free market when it suit them.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;169371]The issue is that in the system we have today public and private sectors are already interwoven. It’s not a system where you can just prune off the non-free market parts and leave the rest. In the case of the EX-IM if it is believed that it is interfering with free markets then some questions should be asked who is going to get hurt if funding is reduced or ended. These small shipping companies may be irreparably damaged and people are going to lose there jobs. What’s going to happen to GE? Maybe their stock will drop a nickle.
It reminds me of the 2008 crash. The government couldn’t shovel taxpayer money at the banks fast enough. We were told that the banks were too big to fail and if they did fail it would damage the economy. Who set up the system so it worked that way? Not too much preaching about the free market then. Seems like the big money boys only believe in the free market when it suit them.[/QUOTE]
and they could have broken up the big banks so they would not be “too big to fail” but they did they did not. They continued the policy of privatized gains but socialized losses. Welcome to the banana republic of the USA.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;169366]If the American operation prefers to pay taxes to Spain the people running the “American” corporation should move their butts to Spain. They should not sit in the USA and claim to be “American”. There are enough loopholes in the USA corporate tax rate to make the effective tax rate one of the lowest in the world. If they do not even want to pay that tax rate they should lose the right to call themselves “American” when in fact they are non-taxpaying leeches undeserving of citizenship.[/QUOTE]
US corps are some of the worst offenders.
Recent news in the UK where some US multinationals had takings in the billions but paid same tax as a bus driver
Like coffee chains Apple etc.
That money will never go back to the USA
Australia has just woken up to it as well.
Its all legal
I wish I was a multinational then I could borrow from Exim and pocket the lot.
The way I see it is none of here really know how this whole thing works. What knowledgeable people that support the EX-IM bank are saying is that defunding the Bank is the equivalent of unilaterally disarming. As a result hundreds of U.S. jobs are going to be lost unnecessarily.
I don’t like the fact the fat cats are able to help themselves to the taxpayer money trough any more then anyone else here but defunding the EX-IM Bank is not going to stop that. I don’t want to see U.S. companies and workers suffer for the sake of ideological purity.
What would Yogi Berra say?
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.” - Yogi Berra - RIP
[QUOTE=lm1883;169397]Not renewing EXIM removes risk from the publics shoulders. Why should my tax dollars go to an Australian Satellite Company? Why should I spend $400k to support the CEOs sons yacht company that’s not even located here? Why should I as a taxpayer pick up the tab when they default on a risky loan made by an institution with little or now over site? Why should my tax dollars subsidize Air Emirates to compete against American Air lines? Maybe I should just forget and be content when the raise my taxes because I have a pretty good job and can afford to give extra.[/QUOTE]
Well I am sorry you don’t like the Ex-Im Bank but realize that without it, the US flagged merchant vessel fleet will be that much smaller and a good number of US citizen mariners are going to be out of work.
It would be much cheaper and better to “subsidize” the foreign trade US merchant fleet, owned and managed by US citizens located in the US, by financing the purchase of modern and competitive foreign flag ships that are now in financial distress. The right financing of newer more fuel efficient ships would more than offset the higher US crewing costs.
Of course eliminating tax abusing flags of convenience would cost nothing.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;169403]It would be much cheaper and better to “subsidize” the foreign trade US merchant fleet, owned and managed by US citizens located in the US, by financing the purchase of modern and competitive foreign flag ships that are now in financial distress. The right financing of newer more fuel efficient ships would more than offset the higher US crewing costs.
Of course eliminating tax abusing flags of convenience would cost nothing.[/QUOTE]
Direct subsidies would be cheaper and better but they would never fly politically. Look at the mortgage interest deduction, imagine trying to sell the idea that the government should mail checks to home owners with the people with the biggest houses and the highest income getting the biggest checks. People would be outraged but that’s exactly what the deduction amounts to.
The EX-IM Bank doesn’t “cost” taxpayers anything in the sense that they return more money to the treasury then they take out. The real cost is hidden as most people don’t understand that accepting risk has a cost. That’s why the bank has survived as long as it has.
[QUOTE=lm1883;169362]When the profits go back to Spain they are not held in a U.S. Bank, this is a form of capital flight.[/QUOTE]
Except the money is probably held in a US bank because they have US capital expenditure needs. Likely the only profit that goes back to Spain is on paper for the shareholders’ report.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;169366]If the American operation prefers to pay taxes to Spain the people running the “American” corporation should move their butts to Spain. They should not sit in the USA and claim to be “American”. There are enough loopholes in the USA corporate tax rate to make the effective tax rate one of the lowest in the world. If they do not even want to pay that tax rate they should lose the right to call themselves “American” when in fact they are non-taxpaying leeches undeserving of citizenship.[/QUOTE]
Did you actually read my post?
No profits ever earned in the USA should ever be allowed to leave the USA without at least a 75% tax paid…PERIOD!
money made here needs to stay here!
[QUOTE=c.captain;169421]No profits ever earned in the USA should ever be allowed to leave the USA without at least a 75% tax paid…PERIOD!
money made here needs to stay here![/QUOTE]
Precisely. Until those who work for wages are afforded the same tax loop holes as the rich and corporations are given I will forever be angry at the hypocrisy of claiming to worry about balancing a budget while the laws are skewed to make sure those that can most afford to contribute to the budget do not have to do so.Billions and billions hidden overseas from the tax man yet “welfare fraud”, “food stamps” medicare, medicaid are the source of all evil? The oligarchy has taken over.
Americans, including Greek-Americans and Norwegian-Americans, are among the worlds largest shipowners. Unfortunately, most of the ships owned by Americans are flag of convenience.
I’m not sure if I would actually support this (I don’t like it), but one approach to shipping reform would be to prohibit US citizens, including corporations, from owning or managing flag of convenience ships.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;169425]Americans, including Greek-Americans and Norwegian-Americans, are among the worlds largest shipowners. Unfortunately, most of the ships owned by Americans are flag of convenience.
I’m not sure if I would actually support this (I don’t like it), but one approach to shipping reform would be to prohibit US citizens, including corporations, from owning or managing flag of convenience ships.[/QUOTE]
The ship owners change flags because they can. They are constantly searching for the flag state with the least regulations. If I could I would register my car in a state I don’t live in to take advantage of cheaper insurance, no inspections required etc. Sadly, as an individual I cannot do that legally. Corporations have more rights and freedom than people and they don’t have to worry about going to jail. One of the founding father of the USA was against allowing corporations to exist at all .He famously said he could not hang a piece of paper by the neck like he could a human therefore there would be no accountability. History has proven that correct.
