Shipping jobs to China... Who's correct?

[Anonymous]

I'm an Independent and I did watch the debate and felt that Romney far out performed Obama. At one point Obama claimed something to the effect that Republicans favor tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. I don't remember exactly how he put it and feel free to quote his statement on that from the debate. Romney replied "I've been in business over 25 years and I have no idea what you are talking about". I remember that because it was a brilliant response in the debate.

Obama said nothing in rebuttal. I assume that he would have made some effort to restate his point if he knew it to be correct. So many people on this forum call Romney a liar yet I have not heard anyone state how Romney is wrong on this issue. Does anyone for fact whether or not companies get tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas?

[jsteele]

Obama was correct that there are tax breaks. They just aren't that big. This is explained here by a source that I assume is acceptable to those who don't agree with me politically:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/05/tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas-explained/

The more interesting part of that exchange was Romney's conclusion that "I maybe need to get a new accountant." Given his experience shipping jobs overseas, if he is not getting that tax break, he probably does need a new accountant.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the information and I did read the link too. From the little I've read about it over the past few minutes, it seems that the "tax break" though is simply a deduction for moving expenses the same as other business expenses. So this is not a special tax break for companies that send work overseas, it's a tax break that's available to all US businesses. And it's minuscule from the wsj removing that tax deduction under Obama's proposal would raise $168 Million over the next ten years (averages to $16.8 Million per year) while corporate taxes are expected to raise $237 Billion this year alone. In the grand scheme of this the amount is so paltry that perhaps time should be spent finding other ways to tax corporations if the goal is to get more money from them.

I don't think either candidate gets a star for this one, in my book.

[jsteele]

As the WSJ articles says, "In fairness, Mr. Obama has other, much more substantial proposals that are aimed at the same general goal of reducing the attractiveness of operating offshore for U.S. businesses."

The tax break is small, but it is symbolic of a larger issue. On the larger issue, Obama and Romney are strongly divided. Obama would use government resources to preserve jobs in the US -- the auto bailout being the best example. Romney believes that is "picking winners and losers". Romney's track record demonstrates that he will move jobs offshore if that will provide the best financial return. Obama wants to use the power of government to keep jobs in the US rather than see them moved, or at a minimum, take steps to stop encouraging the process. Romney would be less likely to use the power of government in that manner.

So, bottom line, the issue is not this small tax break, but a larger philosophy. Do you think government should be involved in protecting American jobs? If so, vote Obama. Do you believe that government should stay out of business because its involvement generally makes things even worse? Then, vote Romney.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:As the WSJ articles says, "In fairness, Mr. Obama has other, much more substantial proposals that are aimed at the same general goal of reducing the attractiveness of operating offshore for U.S. businesses."

The tax break is small, but it is symbolic of a larger issue. On the larger issue, Obama and Romney are strongly divided. Obama would use government resources to preserve jobs in the US -- the auto bailout being the best example. Romney believes that is "picking winners and losers". Romney's track record demonstrates that he will move jobs offshore if that will provide the best financial return. Obama wants to use the power of government to keep jobs in the US rather than see them moved, or at a minimum, take steps to stop encouraging the process. Romney would be less likely to use the power of government in that manner.

So, bottom line, the issue is not this small tax break, but a larger philosophy. Do you think government should be involved in protecting American jobs? If so, vote Obama. Do you believe that government should stay out of business because its involvement generally makes things even worse? Then, vote Romney.

That's a fair summary--and I'm a fiscal conservative.

I'm old enough to remember my folks telling me to finish my dinner because "there are people starving in (fill in the blank)"

But when those folks get jobs, sometimes it's from a textile factory in the south. Then they get more skilled, and they compete up the value chain. Or, maybe they get tired of importing those widgets from the US and want to make them. It can be a U.S. company that owns the factory, but the product is sold locally and the salaries stay at home. That's the global economy. A billion Chinese (and Indians, Brazilians, etc) are working their way out of poverty and, in the process, there's some dislocation here. A conservative (or at least this one) would say that's a fair trade because over the past thousand years or so of evidence, open trade works to improve everyone's standard of living. I think liberals (certain ones) get twisted into a pretzel defending American jobs.

No, I don't think the govt should be defending US jobs (except the normal tit for tat of keeping everyone relatively honest) but should assist in job training to keep our workforce relevant. Now...can someone show me a job training program that works for anyone but the trainers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:As the WSJ articles says, "In fairness, Mr. Obama has other, much more substantial proposals that are aimed at the same general goal of reducing the attractiveness of operating offshore for U.S. businesses."

The tax break is small, but it is symbolic of a larger issue. On the larger issue, Obama and Romney are strongly divided. Obama would use government resources to preserve jobs in the US -- the auto bailout being the best example. Romney believes that is "picking winners and losers". Romney's track record demonstrates that he will move jobs offshore if that will provide the best financial return. Obama wants to use the power of government to keep jobs in the US rather than see them moved, or at a minimum, take steps to stop encouraging the process. Romney would be less likely to use the power of government in that manner.

So, bottom line, the issue is not this small tax break, but a larger philosophy. Do you think government should be involved in protecting American jobs? If so, vote Obama. Do you believe that government should stay out of business because its involvement generally makes things even worse? Then, vote Romney.

That's a fair summary--and I'm a fiscal conservative.

I'm old enough to remember my folks telling me to finish my dinner because "there are people starving in (fill in the blank)"

But when those folks get jobs, sometimes it's from a textile factory in the south. Then they get more skilled, and they compete up the value chain. Or, maybe they get tired of importing those widgets from the US and want to make them. It can be a U.S. company that owns the factory, but the product is sold locally and the salaries stay at home. That's the global economy. A billion Chinese (and Indians, Brazilians, etc) are working their way out of poverty and, in the process, there's some dislocation here. A conservative (or at least this one) would say that's a fair trade because over the past thousand years or so of evidence, open trade works to improve everyone's standard of living. I think liberals (certain ones) get twisted into a pretzel defending American jobs.

No, I don't think the govt should be defending US jobs (except the normal tit for tat of keeping everyone relatively honest) but should assist in job training to keep our workforce relevant. Now...can someone show me a job training program that works for anyone but the trainers?

The major job training program for the US was jointly designed by Ted Kennedy and Dan Quayle and IMO is an example of when bipartisanship doesn't work.