« Previous — Next »
Obama, Liechtenstein, Protectionism and The London School Of Economics
29 February 2008Quite a list. Let’s start with London.
Writing for the Financial Times, a professor from the London School of Economics identifies a number of enemy jurisdictions that pose a grave threat to the world. Some of these jurisdictions should be subject to sanctions, he writes, but in other cases he urges much more aggressive tactics, including annexation. …… Professor Buiter’s Axis-of-Evil is comprised of places such as Liechtenstein, Jersey, Luxembourg, Andorra, Guernsey, Switzerland, and Monaco. These jurisdictions, because of their low tax rates and respect for human rights, attract capital from high-tax nations and therefore make it a bit more difficult for politicians in places such as France and Germany to buy votes with other people’s money
This professor and Obama are soul mates when it comes to economic policy.
When Obama rails against “tax loopholes” and how American companies are taking advantage of these loop holes to move good American jobs overseas, this is what he means.
A company that makes a product in say, Ireland, (with a lower tax rate than Ohio) then sells that product in say, Spain. Does not pay taxes in the US for that product. That product never crossed the American border, but Obama believes the US company that built the product in Ireland and sold it in Spain should be subjected to US taxes at the US tax rate. Because Ireland has a lower tax rate than the US. That is not fair according to Senator Obama.
This is the “loophole” he is talking about in Ohio. This is the “loophole” he says allows US companies to move jobs overseas.
He’s got company in the good professor and in politicians in Germany and France.
They don’t like it that companies can move freely, they would like to see restrictions enacted. Competition is for other people, they don’t like to compete for the tax dollars. Having people vote with their feet and companies is not healthy to their tax collections.
Maybe they should build a wall.
Most economists disagree with Obama, which is not surprising, they (the economists) have spent some time studying these matters. Obama, you know was a community organizer. This was written by two other London economists.
Senator Barack Obama’s campaign has been long on slogans and mood music but short on concrete proposals and policies. However, on 2 Aug 2007, along with Senators Dick Durbin and Sherrod Brown and Representative Jan Schakowsky, Obama introduced the yet unpassed Patriot Employer Act.
If the Patriot Employer Act proposal is anything to go by, we are in trouble if Obama wins. The legislation would provide a tax credit equal to one percent of taxable income to employers who fulfill the following conditions:
· First, employers must not decrease their ratio of full-time workers in the United States to full-time workers outside the United States and they must maintain corporate headquarters in the United States if the company has ever been headquartered there.
· Second, they must pay a minimum hourly wage sufficient to keep a family of three out of poverty: at least $7.80 per hour.
· Third, they must provide a defined benefit retirement plan or a defined contribution retirement plan that fully matches at least five percent of each worker’s contribution.
· Fourth, they must pay at least sixty percent of each worker’s health care premiums.
· Fifth, they must pay the difference between a worker’s regular salary and military salary and continue the health insurance for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called for active duty.
· Sixth, they must maintain neutrality in employee organising campaigns.
Only the last of these conditions does not raise serious issues. In a free society, any worker should be able to join the union of his or her choice or not join.
The emphasis on “free society” is mine. Obama’s plan would make us less free. It would make us all poorer, hurt the National wealth and restrict America’s businesses ability to compete and sell their product overseas. HP sells 63% of it’s product overseas, GM made what profit it did make this last quarter overseas.
Obama’s proposal would force these American companies to become former American companies.
Sen. Barack Obama’s proposal is reactionary, populist, xenophobic and just plain silly.
One Response to “Obama, Liechtenstein, Protectionism and The London School Of Economics”
March 4th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
[…] presents Obama, Liechtenstein, Protectionism and The London School Of Economics posted at […]