“I can tell you what I am, I am a progressive Democrat … who likes to get things done and who believes that we’re better off in this country when we’re trying to solve problems together. Getting people to work together.”
So, how does she propose to “work together” to solve the “problem” of tax inversion? Fix the corporate tax code to make America competitive with the rest of the industrialized world, which will reduce the incentive for companies to relocate or “park” earnings abroad? Nope. As Reason.com’s Ed Krayewski reports, Hillary Clinton Wants to Keep Companies From Leaving U.S. By Holding Patents Hostage:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told a crowd in Iowa she wanted to keep American companies from moving overseas by "using their patents as leverage to make them pay their taxes," referring to companies like Apple and GE she said "were salting money away offshore."
Just last month, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, again denied the company dodged its taxes. "Apple pays every dollar we owe," he said. Apple's harassers, which now include the Democratic presidential frontrunner, insist Apple's perfectly legal decision to hold money abroad to avoid onerous U.S. taxes was wrong.
Socialist or not, that’s how a statist solves problems caused by government—punish the victims with even more rights-violating government policies. That, in Hillary’s worldview, is how we “solve problems together.” Not much in that “togetherness” for her victims.
[ASIDE: I disagree with Krayewski on one key point: He’s says patents are “government privileges” because patents can be used “to suppress a competitor.” This may sometimes be true. We can argue over how patent law should apply. But patent law is crucial to protecting property rights, which encompasses both the intellectual and the material. Patents are not a privilege. It’s the government’s job to protect individual rights. That’s what we pay the government to do.]
Related Reading:
2 comments:
If there's no passed and signed legislation against companies relocating or 'parking' earnings abroad, and companies doing these things have paid all their taxes, how can a criminal 'politician' use patents to punish such companies or to keep other companies from doing the same, thus keeping them subject to bigger tax bills? Such a criminal can do it by not performing a proper function of government, in violation of an elected politician's oath of office and to the Constitution, by not enforcing patents, then welcoming competitors to have a field day.
This criminal 'politician' could seek legislation prohibiting relocating and 'parking', but it's easier, more expeditious, quicker and more effective to just issue an executive order. Cutting taxes is, of course, out of the question.
The only solving problems and working together the people can do with government, and vice versa, is deciding how best for government to perform its one proper function, and for the people to, hence, run free. Anything else is crime.
Post a Comment