What's new

American Economy News & Updates

I agree that a low, flat corporate tax rate is ideal, but then how will we be able to pay all of the deadbeats to stop working and all of the fake disability claims?

Large companies find ways to a zero tax rate

Large companies find ways to a zero tax rate
Matt Krantz, USA TODAY 12:31 a.m. EST February 19, 2014
1382583057000-GTY-137657394.jpg

(Photo: Justin Sullivan, Getty Images)

Story Highlights
  • Among the S&P 500, 58 companies have effective tax rates of 0% or lower
  • Companies that lose money are among the most common that have low effective tax rates
  • Tax reduction techniques, especially transfer payments to foreign units, are used
6111 CONNECT 650 TWEET 91 LINKEDIN 151 COMMENTEMAILMORE
Despite widespread groans about the recent disclosure that Apple is finding ways to cut its federal tax bill, an analysis shows the computer giant is one of scores of corporations largely dodging the taxman.

A surprising number of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500, 57, have found ways to pay effective tax rates of zero, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from S&P Capital IQ.

The effective tax rate is a popular measure used by investors to compare how much companies pay in tax relative to profit.

CEO PAY: Executive compensation skyrockets on soaring stock market

The news comes months after after the Government Accountability Office released a report showing that companies in 2010 reported an average effective tax rate of 12.6%, well below the 35% federal corporate tax rate.

Corporate giants such as telecom firm Verizon, drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb and power management firm Eaton, all reported effective tax rates of 0% during the past 12 months. The findings underscore that while many companies bellyache about the top federal income tax rate of 35%, in reality, many pay much less than that, says Nick Yee of Gradient Analytics. "Investors hope company management is doing everything they can to generate profit, legally," he says. "But the tax code is gray, and there's often no set guidance."

TAX REFUND DELAYS: IRS says shutdown will delay tax filing season

Some ways companies are driving their effective tax rates to zero include:

Offshore transfer payments. One of the favorite ways for companies to slash their tax bills is by setting up foreign subsidiaries to make raw materials and components in countries with low tax rates. The companies' U.S. operations then purchase these parts from the foreign units at well above cost. By doing this, the overseas unit makes a large profit, which then escapes U.S. taxes, as long as it stays in the foreign country, Yee says. Transfer payments are used at Bristol, Forest Labs, Agilent Technologies, Eaton and Lam Research, he says. Many companies are likely waiting for a U.S. tax-holiday, giving them a chance to bring the cash to the U.S. tax-free, Yee says. Agilent and Bristol declined to comment. The other companies didn't respond.

Harvesting losses. Most of the companies with effective tax rates of zero, or even negative, are money losers. While Hewlett-Packard, J.C. Penney and E-Trade pay taxes, since they lose money, they have negative effective tax rates due to the way the number is calculated. Yet, some big companies that have lost money in the past accumulate credits that can be used to offset tax bills in future years. These reserves can be very lucrative and give profit a boost by lowering the effective tax rate, Yee says. Companies with these tax loss reserves include General Motors and Crown Castle, he says. GM, for instance, released credit from its reserve, taking it down from $45 billion to $11 billion. Investors must be aware, though, that once that $11 billion reserve is used up, the company's tax rate returns to the statutory rate. All this follows tax rules, but investors need to be aware. "This isn't anything illegal, but the reserve will run out," Yee says. GM declined to comment. The other companies didn't respond.

Accounting rules. A big reason that Verizon's effective tax rate is so low, coming in at a negative 4.8%, is largely due to accounting. The company's sped-up depreciation, severance and pension costs are large credits that contribute to pushing the company's taxes down, says Jonathan Schildkraut of Evercore. But there's also a distortion caused by the company's 55% interest in Verizon Wireless. Vodafone, which owns 45% of Verizon Wireless, pays taxes on its share, but the entire profit is reported on income. Adjusting for this, Verizon's effective tax rate is closer to 30%, the company says. Verizon is buying Vodafone's stake, which will eliminate the issue in the future. Similarly, real estate investment trusts have low effective tax rates because they pass profit to shareholders, who then pay the taxes.

The question for investors is whether or not companies paying low effective tax rates might, eventually, attract the attention to regulators. "They are slow at getting at these issues," Yee says.

S&P 500 members citing effective tax rates of 0% in past twelve months, ranked by market value (in billions):

Verizon: $146.4

MetLife: $53.9

Eaton: $32.7

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: $29.6

Public Storage: $29.5

Ventas: $19.3

Avalonbay Communities: $17.4

Agilent Technologies: $16.9

Vornado Realty Trust: $16.8

Boston Properites: $16.7

Seagate Technology: $15.9

Broadcom: $15.7

News Corp.: $9.8

Lam Research: $8.8

Kimco Realty: $8.6

Waters: $8.5

Macerich: $8.3

Plum Creek Timber: $8.4

PulteGroup: $6.4

Apartment Investment & Management: $4.3

Perkin Elmer: $4.2
 
preparing? for
0.1% to
-1% to
-2.9% to
-2.1% ?
q1 growth?

youre the one accusing other countries faking their gdp numbers like you do to china. The only one faking is you

I have not questioned China's GDP numbers, but feel free to prove me wrong if you can produce proof (you will not be able to).

If you are troubled by the revision process, I recommend that you only pay attention to Q2's numbers one year from now, when the final revision is made. Calculating the GDP is a complex process that requires reams of data, and it takes time to gather all of that data. The American process gives me high confidence in our numbers, but believe me, the US doesn't live or die based on your opinion of our process. Only the bond market matters.

Large companies find ways to a zero tax rate

Large companies find ways to a zero tax rate
Matt Krantz, USA TODAY 12:31 a.m. EST February 19, 2014
1382583057000-GTY-137657394.jpg

(Photo: Justin Sullivan, Getty Images)

Story Highlights
  • Among the S&P 500, 58 companies have effective tax rates of 0% or lower
  • Companies that lose money are among the most common that have low effective tax rates
  • Tax reduction techniques, especially transfer payments to foreign units, are used
6111 CONNECT 650 TWEET 91 LINKEDIN 151 COMMENTEMAILMORE
Despite widespread groans about the recent disclosure that Apple is finding ways to cut its federal tax bill, an analysis shows the computer giant is one of scores of corporations largely dodging the taxman.

A surprising number of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500, 57, have found ways to pay effective tax rates of zero, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from S&P Capital IQ.

The effective tax rate is a popular measure used by investors to compare how much companies pay in tax relative to profit.

CEO PAY: Executive compensation skyrockets on soaring stock market

The news comes months after after the Government Accountability Office released a report showing that companies in 2010 reported an average effective tax rate of 12.6%, well below the 35% federal corporate tax rate.

Corporate giants such as telecom firm Verizon, drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb and power management firm Eaton, all reported effective tax rates of 0% during the past 12 months. The findings underscore that while many companies bellyache about the top federal income tax rate of 35%, in reality, many pay much less than that, says Nick Yee of Gradient Analytics. "Investors hope company management is doing everything they can to generate profit, legally," he says. "But the tax code is gray, and there's often no set guidance."

TAX REFUND DELAYS: IRS says shutdown will delay tax filing season

Some ways companies are driving their effective tax rates to zero include:

Offshore transfer payments. One of the favorite ways for companies to slash their tax bills is by setting up foreign subsidiaries to make raw materials and components in countries with low tax rates. The companies' U.S. operations then purchase these parts from the foreign units at well above cost. By doing this, the overseas unit makes a large profit, which then escapes U.S. taxes, as long as it stays in the foreign country, Yee says. Transfer payments are used at Bristol, Forest Labs, Agilent Technologies, Eaton and Lam Research, he says. Many companies are likely waiting for a U.S. tax-holiday, giving them a chance to bring the cash to the U.S. tax-free, Yee says. Agilent and Bristol declined to comment. The other companies didn't respond.

Harvesting losses. Most of the companies with effective tax rates of zero, or even negative, are money losers. While Hewlett-Packard, J.C. Penney and E-Trade pay taxes, since they lose money, they have negative effective tax rates due to the way the number is calculated. Yet, some big companies that have lost money in the past accumulate credits that can be used to offset tax bills in future years. These reserves can be very lucrative and give profit a boost by lowering the effective tax rate, Yee says. Companies with these tax loss reserves include General Motors and Crown Castle, he says. GM, for instance, released credit from its reserve, taking it down from $45 billion to $11 billion. Investors must be aware, though, that once that $11 billion reserve is used up, the company's tax rate returns to the statutory rate. All this follows tax rules, but investors need to be aware. "This isn't anything illegal, but the reserve will run out," Yee says. GM declined to comment. The other companies didn't respond.

Accounting rules. A big reason that Verizon's effective tax rate is so low, coming in at a negative 4.8%, is largely due to accounting. The company's sped-up depreciation, severance and pension costs are large credits that contribute to pushing the company's taxes down, says Jonathan Schildkraut of Evercore. But there's also a distortion caused by the company's 55% interest in Verizon Wireless. Vodafone, which owns 45% of Verizon Wireless, pays taxes on its share, but the entire profit is reported on income. Adjusting for this, Verizon's effective tax rate is closer to 30%, the company says. Verizon is buying Vodafone's stake, which will eliminate the issue in the future. Similarly, real estate investment trusts have low effective tax rates because they pass profit to shareholders, who then pay the taxes.

The question for investors is whether or not companies paying low effective tax rates might, eventually, attract the attention to regulators. "They are slow at getting at these issues," Yee says.

S&P 500 members citing effective tax rates of 0% in past twelve months, ranked by market value (in billions):

Verizon: $146.4

MetLife: $53.9

Eaton: $32.7

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: $29.6

Public Storage: $29.5

Ventas: $19.3

Avalonbay Communities: $17.4

Agilent Technologies: $16.9

Vornado Realty Trust: $16.8

Boston Properites: $16.7

Seagate Technology: $15.9

Broadcom: $15.7

News Corp.: $9.8

Lam Research: $8.8

Kimco Realty: $8.6

Waters: $8.5

Macerich: $8.3

Plum Creek Timber: $8.4

PulteGroup: $6.4

Apartment Investment & Management: $4.3

Perkin Elmer: $4.2

The very complexity of the tax code ensures that only large multinational corporations will be able to take advantage of these deductions, and turn what is nominally a progressive tax code into a highly regressive one. It's time for a simple, low, flat tax.
 
Chicago PMI plunges in biggest one-month drop since Oct. 2008 - MarketWatch

print-logo.png

Economic Report

July 31, 2014, 11:17 a.m. EDT

Chicago PMI plunges in biggest one-month drop since Oct. 2008
Index at lowest level in a year
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch

MW-CP109_chicag_20140731100500_MG.jpg

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — A key Midwestern manufacturing gauge saw its biggest drop in July since the start of the financial crisis in October 2008, suggesting the possibility of a softer second half U.S. economic performance than had been hoped.

The Chicago purchasing managers index plunged to a reading of 52.6 in July, down from a reading of 62.6 in the prior month and well below the consensus of 63.5.

ECONOMY AND POLITICS | @MKTWEconomics
AFP/Getty Images
A city-by-city look at home prices in May
Tampa, Charlotte among gainers.
U.S. homeownership at 18-year low

The July reading was the worst in over a year.

Purchasing managers said the downturn was a “lull” and not the start of a new downward trend.

“Some feedback from panelists points to this being a temporary setback, although we’ll need to see the August data to judge to what extent this is a blip,” said Philip Uglow, chief economist at MNI Indicators.

Jim O’Sullivan, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, said the slowdown was not likely due to the annual shutdown of auto plants to retool for new production.

“It hasn’t been an issue before,” he said.

Michael Gapen, economist at Barclays, said the reversal in the index in July reflects “a moderation of economic activity into the second half of the year after the second-quarter bounce back.”

The economy bounced back to a 4% annual growth rate in the second quarter after a sluggish winter. Gapen said he expects 2.5% growth in the second half.

“The July Chicago PMI would be consistent with this view, although the timing of the move came earlier than we had anticipated,” he said.

After the release of the Chicago PMI data -- which subscribers get three minutes ahead of the public -- stocks continued lower. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI:DJIA) was recently down 161 points to 16,719.

Production activity fell to 51.4 from 70.1. New orders also slowed to 55.7 from 65.1 and the order backlog, which slipped into contractionary territory for the first time since last August.

The Chicago PMI reading comes ahead of the national Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index -- which economists, prior to the poor Chicago reading, forecast to rise to 56.3% from 55.3% in June. Analysts noted that the Chicago PMI can be volatile and does not always foreshadow the national number.

O’Sullivan has been expecting a 57.0% reading of the ISM in July and said he was not a “little less confident” in that forecast. But he said he still expected the ISM to rise in the month, noting that other regional indexes this month weren’t nearly as bearish.

The Empire State manufacturing survey climbed to 25.6 in July from 19.3 in June. It’s the highest level of that index since April 2010. The Philadelphia Fed survey jumped to 23.9 from 17.8. The Milwaukee index, also released Thursday morning, rose to 63.9 in July from 60.6 in the prior month.

Elsewhere on Thursday, the Labor Department reported jobless claims turned higher one week after touching a 14-year low, and the employment cost index rose 0.7% in the second quarter, the fastest growth since 2008.
 
Panasonic, Tesla to build big U.S. battery plant


TOKYO —

American electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc. is teaming up with Japanese electronics company Panasonic Corp. to build a battery manufacturing plant in the U.S. expected to create 6,500 jobs.

The companies announced the deal Thursday, but they did not say where in the U.S. the so-called “gigafactory,” or large-scale plant, will be built. Tesla has said that Nevada, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are in the running.

Financial terms weren’t disclosed for the $5 billion plant.

The plant will produce cells, modules and packs for Tesla’s electric vehicles and for the stationary energy storage market, employing 6,500 people by 2020.

Under the agreement, Tesla, based in Palo Alto, California, will prepare, provide and manage the land and buildings, while Osaka-based Panasonic will manufacture and supply the lithium-ion battery cells and invest in equipment.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said the factory will help Tesla reduce its battery costs by 30 percent. Tesla needs cheaper batteries in order to produce its mass-market Model 3, an electric car it’s developing that would cost around $30,000. Tesla hopes to have the Model 3 on the road by 2017. The company’s only current vehicle, the Model S sedan, starts at $70,000.

“The Gigafactory represents a fundamental change in the way large-scale battery production can be realized,” said Tesla Chief Technical Officer and co-founder JB Straubel, referring to the cost reductions.

Sales of zero-emission electric vehicles account for less than 1 percent of the global auto market. But worries about global warming and more stringent emissions regulations in many countries are expected to boost sales of electric and other green vehicles.

Yoshihiko Yamada, executive vice president of Panasonic, said the planned factory will help the electric vehicle market grow.

Panasonic, which has ceded much of its strength in consumer electronics to competitors, is putting more focus on businesses that serve other industries, including batteries.

It remains powerful in Japan and some overseas markets in consumer products such as refrigerators, washing machines and batteries for gadgets.


Panasonic, Tesla to build big U.S. battery plant ‹ Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion
 
Shifts in U.S. Trading Partners From 1984 to the Present - Real Time Economics - WSJ

  • wsj_print.gif
  • August 6, 2014, 2:46 PM ET
Shifts in U.S. Trading Partners From 1984 to the Present
ByRani Molla
Over the past three decades, U.S. trading partners for goods have changed — but not drastically. The biggest shift has been the rapid rise of China as both an importer and exporter.

OG-AC218_export_G_20140806125103.jpg


Canada consistently tops the list of countries that buy U.S. exports. Mexico and Canada have the highest exports and nearly highest imports due to geographic proximity and trade agreements over our shared borders. Otherwise, countries’ demand for U.S. exports tracks with their GDP, according to the Economics & Statistics Administration. China, for example, is quickly climbing the list of U.S. export markets as its economy grows.

OG-AC219_import_G_20140806125140.jpg

The numbers for 2014 are just for the first six months of the year, and are subject to revision, meaning that rankings may shift. For example, in 2013 France beat out Belgium in the top 10 destinations for American goods and could potentially return by the end of the year. Meanwhile, Hong Kong was excluded in the rankings since it isn’t an independent country, but would have ranked 10th in U.S. exports.

Both imports and exports are dominated by capital goods and industrial supplies that are used by companies and manufacturers. Goods sold to consumers make up a smaller share of trade.
 
The numbers seem small, but these are among our best and brightest. I wonder when Democrats will stop forcing citizens to choose between being successful, and being American.

Americans Give Up Passports as Asset-Disclosure Rules Start - Bloomberg

logo_post_b.gif


Americans Give Up Passports as Asset-Disclosure Rules Start
By Dylan Griffiths - Aug 7, 2014
The number of Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship stayed near an all-time high in the first half of the year before rules that make it harder to hide assets from tax authorities came into force.

Some 1,577 people gave up their nationality at U.S. embassies in the six months through June, according to Federal Register data published yesterday. While that’s a 13 percent decline from the year-earlier period, it’s only the second time there’s been a reading of more than 1,500, according to Bloomberg News calculations based on records starting in 1998.

Tougher asset-disclosure rules effective as of July 1 under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, prompted 576 of the estimated 6 million Americans living overseas to give up their passports in the second quarter. The appeal of U.S. citizenship for expatriates faded as more than 100 Swiss banks turn over data on American clients to avoid prosecution for helping tax evaders.

“Fatca and the Swiss bank disclosure program has intensified the search for U.S. nationals beyond all measure,” said Matthew Ledvina, a U.S. tax lawyer at Anaford AG in Zurich. “It’s shocking the levels of due diligence they are going through to ensure they have cleaned house.”

Swiss banks are trawling through records going back to the 1990s to find clients with U.S. addresses and telephone numbers, and those who received schooling in the country, Ledvina said. Those identified as U.S. persons are either being asked to leave or placed in special U.S.-only sections of the institution, he said.

Imposing Tax
The U.S., the only Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nation that taxes citizens wherever they reside, stepped up the search for tax dodgers after UBS AG (UBSN) paid a $780 million penalty in 2009 and handed over data on about 4,700 accounts. Shunned by Swiss and German banks and with Fatca looming, almost 9,000 Americans living overseas gave up their passports over the past five years.

i_F3uMA_oux4.png


Fatca requires U.S. financial institutions to impose a 30 percent withholding tax on payments made to foreign banks that don’t agree to identify and provide information on U.S. account holders. It allows the U.S. to scoop up data from more than 77,000 institutions and 80 governments about its citizens’ overseas financial activities.

Swiss Bank Accounts: Not So Secret Anymore

In establishing the 2010 Fatca law, Congress and President Barack Obama in effect threatened to cut off banks and other companies from easy access to the U.S. market if they didn’t pass along such information. It was projected to generate $8.7 billion over 10 years, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Voluntary Disclosures
The start of Fatca was delayed by 18 months to give foreign banks time to comply with the law, after financial institutions including Canada’sToronto-Dominion Bank (TD) and Allianz SE of Germany expressed concerns it was too complex.

More than two-thirds of 400 U.S. expatriates surveyed in November by Zurich-based deVere Group said they had considered giving up their passports.

As many as 106 Swiss banks entered a U.S. Justice Department program to volunteer information on how they helped clients hide money from the Internal Revenue Service, in exchange for leniency. Those banks have discovered that thousands of their clients have dual U.S.-Swiss or European citizenship, obliging them to make voluntary disclosures, said Ledvina. To avoid prosecution for handling undeclared American money, the banks must hand over account data and pay penalties.

June 30 was the deadline for turning over information on Americans considered in breach of U.S. tax rules, while July 31 marked the end of the second wave of deliveries and includes documents that show which American clients were compliant.

Compliance Costs
Switzerland is the largest cross-border financial center with $2.3 trillion of assets.

About a dozen banks, including Julius Baer Group Ltd. (BAER) and HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA)’s Swiss unit, are excluded from the program as they are already under investigation in the U.S. Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN), the second-biggest Swiss bank that was part of the probe, was fined $2.6 billion in May after it pleaded guilty to aiding tax evasion.

The additional compliance costs for companies to ensure that Americans they hire are filing the correct U.S. tax returns and asset-declaration forms are $7,000 per person, according to Ledvina. The U.S. accounting costs for individuals opting for expatriation are typically about $4,000 per year, he said.

Americans with a net worth exceeding $2 million and an average income tax of at least $157,000 over the previous five years must pay an exit tax on unrealized capital gains when they renounce U.S. citizenship.

U.S. citizens aren’t the only ones giving up their ties to America. The Treasury Department is also trying limit the benefits from corporations adopting foreign addresses to avoid taxes, a process known as a inversion.
 
The numbers seem small, but these are among our best and brightest. I wonder when Democrats will stop forcing citizens to choose between being successful, and being American..

Possibly..but I think this is probably drawing the wrong picture. There needs to be more of a breakdown as to who these people really are.

1) What percentage are moving out of the US due to the tax laws.
2) What percentage are US citizens already living abroad who already had no plans for ever coming back.

I'm going to guess most are #2.
You can claim it was already unfair to tax these people for any income they earn overseas. While they are citizens..they are citizens in name only. Maybe they didn't bother getting citizenship where they are...or maybe they just like having a US passport. Now you give them a nightmare of not being able to easily have a bank account. So they give up their citizenship. Is it a huge loss for the US?...well I guess that's a case by case situation.

For instance @Nihonjin1051 people could already claim that Japan has "lost you" since you are physically here. I assume they don't force you to pay taxes and they can't force you to send money back. So you are in a type of limbo with them. They announce they want you to pay taxes and US banks have to file so much paperwork they don't even want to let you open an account. So do you:
1) apply for citizenship here and pay 0 Japanese taxes and keeping paying just American taxes.
2) go back to Japan and pay Japanese taxes.
3) keep your Japanese citizenship and pay Japanese and American taxes and deal with a nightmare.

Just think Japan comes out ahead tax-wise if you choose scenario #2 or #3. They lose if you pick #1...but basically they are already losing since you are pretty much in a #1 situation already tax-wise..
 
Last edited:
Possibly..but I think this is probably drawing the wrong picture. There needs to be more of a breakdown as to who these people really are.

1) What percentage are moving out of the US due to the tax laws.
2) What percentage are US citizens already living abroad who already had no plans for ever coming back.

I'm going to guess most are #2.
You can claim it was already unfair to tax these people for any income they earn overseas. While they are citizens..they are citizens in name only. Maybe they didn't bother getting citizenship where they are...or maybe they just like having a US passport. Now you give them a nightmare of not being able to easily have a bank account. So they give up their citizenship. Is it a huge loss for the US?...well I guess that's a case by case situation.

On the contrary, this has nothing to do with taxes. These citizens already pay US taxes, since the US, uniquely among the OECD, treats its citizens as tax-resident no matter where they live or earn their income. These citizens were already being extorted despite not drawing on US services, but they still paid this extortion tax as patriotic Americans. It is the onerous FATCA (and to a lesser degree, FBAR) asset reporting requirements that are driving these law-abiding citizens to surrender their citizenship. To pay US taxes and then have these onerous requirements in addition is just too much, especially because under FATCA, non-American family members are brought into the IRS dragnet. It costs thousands of dollars for these citizens just to comply with FATCA, let alone the accountant fees on top of paying their extortion taxes to the US government. My own family members are considering surrendering their citizenship over this.

Yes, it is a huge loss for the US. These are primarily professionals living abroad, not janitors. Is it a good deal to trade our managerial class for unskilled immigrant illegals? If you're a Democrat, it's a great deal. If you're a citizen concerned about the future of America, it's the worst kind of deal.
 
On the contrary, this has nothing to do with taxes. These citizens already pay US taxes, since the US, uniquely among the OECD, treats its citizens as tax-resident no matter where they live or earn their income. These citizens were already being extorted despite not drawing on US services, but they still paid this extortion tax as patriotic Americans. It is the onerous FATCA (and to a lesser degree, FBAR) asset reporting requirements that are driving these law-abiding citizens to surrender their citizenship. To pay US taxes and then have these onerous requirements in addition is just too much, especially because under FATCA, non-American family members are brought into the IRS dragnet. It costs thousands of dollars for these citizens just to comply with FATCA, let alone the accountant fees on top of paying their extortion taxes to the US government. My own family members are considering surrendering their citizenship over this.

Yes, it is a huge loss for the US. These are primarily professionals living abroad, not janitors. Is it a good deal to trade our managerial class for unskilled immigrant illegals? If you're a Democrat, it's a great deal. If you're a citizen concerned about the future of America, it's the worst kind of deal.

Well i edited my response. But yes I agree we are taxed no matter where we live and the US Government is making it more and more difficult for US professionals abroad to stay US citizens as the new FATCA/banking regulations only make their life more difficult.
 
Well i edited my response. But yes I agree we are taxed no matter where we live and the US Government is making it more and more difficult for US professionals abroad to stay US citizens as the new FATCA/banking regulations only make their life more difficult.

I read the scenario that you proposed to Nihonjin, and I agree, it's a game of chicken. Governments may think that they can afford to abuse their citizens, since the citizens are trapped in a dilemma, and so will choose what is comfortable over what is economically beneficial. But not all will choose options #2 or #3, and those who choose option #1 will forever be alienated.

It was always more expensive being an American abroad. Now add onerous asset reporting requirements that involve non-American family members and which bear draconian penalties, and suddenly, it's much riskier from a legal aspect to retain American citizenship. The situation now is that expatriates are, under FATCA, presumed guilty until proven innocent. I love America as much as the next citizen, but I can't love an American that hates me and presumes I'm a criminal just because I live and work abroad.

Many of these people wanted to work abroad because the job opportunities presented themselves, but intended to come back to the US at some point to "settle down." These are the people that make our multinational corporations the dominant titans they are today. Now, these citizens, their experience, knowledge, skills, and assets, are potentially lost to the US forever. Congratulations, Democrats.
 
Many of these people wanted to work abroad because the job opportunities presented themselves, but intended to come back to the US at some point to "settle down." These are the people that make our multinational corporations the dominant titans they are today. Now, these citizens, their experience, knowledge, skills, and assets, are potentially lost to the US forever. Congratulations, Democrats.

Can't make an assessment without seeing the percentage of how many actually come back pre-FATCA. If it is very very very low would that affect your opinion?
 
Can't make an assessment without seeing the percentage of how many actually come back pre-FATCA. If it is very very very low would that affect your opinion?

We will probably never know the change, given that the Census Bureau doesn't even know for certain how many citizens live abroad, let alone return. Given the increased number of renounced citizenships since Dodd-Frank was passed, it seems certain that the percent of non-returnees has increased (or if nothing else, the percent that cannot return has increased). That said, it's not merely the change in percent of returnees that makes my blood boil over FATCA and FBAR, it's the burden that is placed on law-abiding American citizens abroad simply because they live abroad, especially because this is a sledgehammer of a law aimed at a tiny percentage of ultra-wealthy tax dodgers, but lands most heavily on middle class professionals (please take special note of the graphs):

http://online.wsj.com/articles/more...with-uncle-sam-to-escape-tax-rules-1402972439

Expatriate Americans Break Up With Uncle Sam to Escape Tax Rules
Record Numbers Living Abroad Renounce U.S. Citizenship over IRS Reporting Requirements

Updated June 16, 2014 11:08 p.m. ET
P1-BQ440_SLAMME_G_20140616170913.jpg

Patricia Moon, shown in her Toronto home, renounced her U.S. citizenship after living abroad for three decades. Philip Cheung for The Wall Street Journal

Patricia Moon was born in Dayton, Ohio, to a family descended from Quakers who settled in the New World before the American Revolution.

As a young woman, Ms. Moon fell for a Canadian man and moved to Toronto. The 59-year-old homemaker, who still visits the U.S. to see relatives, said she feels American in her bones, even after three decades abroad.

Yet despite her deep roots, Ms. Moon walked into a U.S. consulate two years ago, raised her right hand and recited an oath renouncing her U.S. citizenship. Afterward, she said, "I bawled my eyes out."

Ms. Moon is among record numbers of Americans cutting ties. U.S. offices abroad reported that 1,001 U.S. citizens and green-card holders had renounced their allegiance in the first three months of the year, according to Andrew Mitchel, a lawyer in Centerbrook, Conn., who analyzes Treasury Department data. That figure puts 2014 on track to top last year's total of 2,999 renunciations, he said, which was the most since the government began disclosing the data.

Helping boost the exodus, experts say, is a five-year-old U.S. campaign to hunt for undeclared accounts held by Americans abroad.

Since 2009, the government campaign has collected more than $6 billion in taxes, interest and penalties from more than 43,000 U.S. taxpayers. Federal prosecutors have filed more than 100 criminal indictments, including the high-profile case of Beanie Babies inventor Ty Warner, who last year pleaded guilty to tax evasion involving secret Swiss bank accounts.

The tax dragnet has also swept up many middle-income Americans living abroad, prompting some to give up their U.S. citizenship. While people who renounce aren't freed of taxes due for past years, they don't want to risk sizable taxes and penalties for them and their children in the years ahead, experts say. Nearly 8,000 taxpayers have renounced U.S. citizenship in the past five years, Mr. Mitchel found, compared with fewer than 5,000 in the preceding decade.

P1-BQ444B_SLAMM_NS_20140616162403.jpg


"The increase is due to current and future changes in tax law and enforcement," said Freddi Weintraub, a New York attorney at the Fragomen firm who specializes in immigration law. She said in recent years she has seen a threefold increase in expatriation inquiries related to taxes.

Ms. Moon, for example, feared the IRS could charge her family nearly a half-million dollars in penalties on undeclared savings and checking accounts—even though, she said, the accounts never held more than $102,000, weren't intentionally hidden and didn't have any U.S. taxes owed. "I was afraid we would have to cash in our retirement accounts and sell our home," she said.

Experts say the U.S. campaign could affect millions of Americans like Ms. Moon—people who aren't wealthy, pay taxes in their host country, and who say they weren't trying to dodge U.S. taxes.

"We have reached the point where middle-class American citizens abroad are being forced to renounce—especially if they have assets and are moving toward retirement—because of taxes, paperwork and huge potential penalties," said John Richardson, a Toronto lawyer with dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship. He and Ms. Moon help run a nonprofit group seeking to keep Canada from sharing private account information with U.S. authorities.

As word spreads, experts said, more Americans are likely to consider surrendering their citizenship. The State Department estimates that 7.6 million American citizens live outside the U.S., but only a fraction file required financial disclosure forms.

Mark Mazur, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for tax policy, said the government's new enforcement was intended to help make sure all taxpayers pay what they owe "regardless of where they live."

At the same time, Mr. Mazur said, Treasury needs to "maintain a balance between enforcement efforts and equity, including the burdens that may be placed on taxpayers."

Mr. Mazur said Treasury was looking into how best to work with Congress and the IRS to fine-tune the system: "You can always improve."

U.S. officials launched their campaign after Swiss banking giant UBS AGUBSN.VX -0.45% admitted in 2009 that it helped wealthy American taxpayers hide money overseas. To avoid criminal charges, the bank paid $780 million to the U.S. and turned over information on more than 4,400 accounts, ending decades of Swiss bank secrecy.

In May, Credit Suisse Group CSGN.VX -1.47% pleaded guilty to similar charges and agreed to pay $2.6 billion. Dozens of other Swiss banks are currently negotiating penalties with the U.S. Department of Justice, officials said.

Following the UBS revelations, U.S. officials announced they would begin vigorously enforcing both new and long-dormant tax rules.

Unlike other developed nations, the U.S. government taxes citizens on income they earn anywhere in the world. The rule dates to the Civil War, when Ms. Moon's great-great grandfather served with Union forces.

U.S. tax liabilities also cover children born to Americans abroad, extending the reach of the IRS across generations, as well as oceans.

For decades, wealthy taxpayers were able to hide foreign assets in countries where bank-secrecy laws fostered attractive tax havens, including Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and Panama.

But the UBS case signaled the beginning of the end for such havens. Armed with information from the Swiss bank, U.S. authorities pursued individuals for back taxes, and pressured the tax professionals who helped them.

As a result of the crackdown, Ms. Moon and others learned they had failed to comply with the law. "We call it the 'Oh, my God! moment.' Every expatriate has it," Ms. Moon said. "They were going to take every dime we had, that was my fear."

P1-BQ445_SLAMME_G_20140616162705.jpg


The violations often don't involve unpaid U.S. taxes on wages: The law currently exempts about $100,000 of income earned abroad each year. Ms. Moon, for example, didn't owe any income tax. She said she never made more than $11,000 a year when she worked from 2007 to 2012 as a bookkeeper for a business run by her husband, who earned about $65,000 a year devising special effects for movies and TV.

The most common mistakes usually involved Americans failing to submit a form called the Foreign Bank Account Report, or Fbar. Since 1970, U.S. taxpayers have been required to file if they held one or more foreign accounts totaling more than $10,000 over the course of a year. Until the enforcement push, many Americans never filed an Fbar.

The law is more than 40 years old, but "no one ever heard of it" before the crackdown, said Edward Kleinbard, a former chief of staff on Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, and an expert in international tax law at the University of Southern California.

Fbar penalties are as steep as 50% of the highest value of the account for each year no report was filed. The IRS fined one taxpayer for Fbar violations in four separate years, and a settlement reached this month in the case yielded $1.7 million in penalties, which was more than the account held at the time. Experts say the stiff penalties were originally enacted to discourage wealthy tycoons from hiding assets abroad.

In the fall of 2011, Ms. Moon learned she should have been filing Fbar forms on joint accounts she held with her husband. She calculated she could owe about $455,000 in penalties for the years she failed to file.

The IRS was unlikely to have imposed penalties that high, experts said, but it could have. "Getting professional help to correct her mistakes could easily have cost $15,000 to $20,000," said Bryan Skarlatos, a lawyer with Kostelanetz & Fink in New York, which has advised thousands of taxpayers with secret offshore accounts.

Ms. Moon considered what to do. One of the IRS's limited-amnesty programs had just ended and a new one didn't start until 2012. She said she wouldn't have entered a program in any case because she considered Fbar penalties too steep for "failing to file a piece of paper." Penalties and other costs can amount to a third of the balance in an account or more.

"The programs are best for people who have done things serious enough to land them in prison and are willing to pay huge penalties to stay out," said Philip Hodgen, an international tax lawyer in Pasadena, Calif.

Americans with smaller offshore accounts who entered the first IRS limited amnesty program paid proportionately higher penalties than taxpayers with larger accounts, according to Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, an IRS ombudsman.

The typical taxpayer with less than $45,000 in undeclared accounts paid nearly six times the back taxes owed, while the typical taxpayer with more than $7 million in such accounts paid closer to three times their back taxes, Ms. Olson found.

IRS officials "didn't think about the demographics of the population" of overseas Americans, Ms. Olson said, often treating middle-class taxpayers the same as "bad actors."

"There's an awful lot of minnows caught up in this," said Marvin Van Horn, a 66-year-old retired financial controller for Alaska Airlines. He said he entered an IRS limited-amnesty program in 2009: "I assumed it would be very clear I was not one of those quote-unquote offshore tax cheats, those big whales they were looking for."

In prior U.S. tax filings, Mr. Van Horn said he hadn't declared rental income from a house he and his Australian wife own in New Zealand, as well as interest income. He said he didn't know such declarations were required.

"I have to take some responsibility," Mr. Van Horn said. "It was stupidity and not paying attention on my part."

The IRS fined him more than $172,000, roughly eight times his back taxes, which amounted to about $21,000 over six years, Mr. Van Horn said. With help from Ms. Olson's office, he said, the fine was reduced to about $25,000. Spokesmen for the IRS and Ms. Olson said they couldn't comment on individual cases.

In a June 3 speech, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said the agency may not have been accommodating enough to U.S. citizens who have lived abroad for years. "We have been considering whether these individuals should have an opportunity to come into compliance that doesn't involve the type of penalties that are appropriate for U.S.-resident taxpayers who were willfully hiding their investments overseas," he said.

Scrutiny of Americans abroad will intensify, however, under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, which Congress passed in 2010. The law's main provisions, which take effect in July, will require foreign financial institutions to report income of their U.S. customers to the IRS, much as U.S. banks and brokers file 1099 forms.

Middle-class Americans "face overwhelming problems when they try to engage in standard financial practices, such as having a small business, saving for retirement, investing, buying life insurance, and making wills and trusts," because of the laws governing assets abroad, said David Kuenzi, a financial planner with Thun Financial Advisors in Madison, Wis., who works with expatriates.

The U.S. tax code, for example, doesn't recognize Australia's version of an individual retirement account, Mr. Kuenzi said. American taxpayers with these accounts must file at least two forms a year declaring the account a "foreign trust," and paying taxes on annual appreciation.

The penalty for failing to file can be as much as 35% of both contributions and withdrawals each year, plus 5% of the assets, said Mr. Hodgen, the Pasadena tax lawyer.

Ms. Moon learned that U.S. law requires her to file annual reports on retirement accounts, such as her Tax-Free Savings Account—similar to a Roth IRA.

Her husband, Ken Whitmore, objected to divulging financial information on joint accounts to the IRS. "Would you want the Canada revenue service to know what your financial situation is?" he said.

Ms. Moon concluded that even if the IRS didn't levy the stiffest fines, the potential consequences down the road for missing a deadline or making a mistake were too costly. She later learned she would have been required to pay U.S. taxes on part of the gain on the couple's Toronto house, which they hope to sell for a retirement nest egg. They bought the house in the mid-1980s for $125,000, she said, and it was now worth an estimated $800,000.

Before renouncing her citizenship, Ms. Moon spoke with her sister, Sue Moon, a certified public accountant in Kansas City, Mo.

"U.S. citizenship is the most coveted citizenship in the world. To give it up, it has to be pretty serious," Sue Moon said. "There was just a sadness on her part, that she had to make that decision. She didn't take it lightly."

Months after Ms. Moon renounced her citizenship, her official notice arrived in Toronto. Ms. Moon went to the U.S. consulate to pick it up and paid a $450 processing fee. She told the clerk it was "the saddest $450 I'll ever spend."
 
Federal Reserve finds US households are unwell | FT Alphaville

Federal Reserve finds US households are unwell
Matthew C Klein | Aug 07 21:00 | Comment | Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households“. It provides some useful context for the ongoing debates about theincome distribution and excess savings.

A few particularly dispiriting highlights:

  • Among Americans aged 18-59, only a third had sufficient emergency savings to cover three months of expenses.
  • Only 48 per cent of Americans could come up with $400 on short notice without borrowing money or sell something.
  • 45 per cent of Americans save none of their income.
Also noteworthy is the demographic breakdown of how people expect to retire, based on their current age. Young people are optimistic they will be able to stop working when they get older and live off their nest egg, while those on the verge of retiring are much more likely to expect having to toil for the rest of their lives:

Retirement-plans-2013-SHED1.png


The insufficient savings of many older Americans helps explain why the labor force participation rates of people aged 55 and older has steadily increased over the past quarter-century even as the labor force participation rates of those aged 25-54 hasfallen over the same period.

Another interesting tidbit regards the impact of student debt: 44 per cent of people with outstanding education burdens “reported avoiding medical treatment because they could not afford it, compared with 30 percent of people without student loans.” This seems to corroborate the intuition that excessive borrowing for degree programs of dubious value could depress consumption among a subset of the population for many years. (Whether this would have significant macro impact is less obvious. SeeCardiff’s post from June.)

The last datum we want to highlight has to do with housing: About half of American renters aged 18-49 would rather be homeowners but cannot afford the down payment required to get a mortgage. We suspect that many of those renters would have been homeowners in 2004-2006 because minimum down payments were much lower then, even though house prices and interest rates were both somewhat higher. The importance of minimum down payments as a driver of housing demand (and prices) was first called to our attention by John Geanakoplos, who created this arresting chart back in 2010:

Downpayments-vs-house-prices-590x429.png


Amusingly, the National Association of Realtors, which regularly publishes a Housing Affordability Index, does not consider down payments when calculating the cost of housing, only home prices and mortgage rates. (Tip of the hat to the WSJ’s Josh Zumbrun for catching that.) The renewed cautiousness of lenders regarding down payment requirements may help explain why the Fed’s efforts to goose the housing market by lowering borrowing costs haven’t been as successful as some might have predicted a few years back.

None of the findings in the Fed’s report provide any immediate guidance for monetary policymakers, although we hope they silence those who simplistically argue that the economy’s weakness is due to a surfeit of savings rather than what might be better described as a sub-optimal distribution of savings.
 
How Low Can Jobless Claims Go? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

11:36 am ET
Aug 7, 2014
EMPLOYMENT
How Low Can Jobless Claims Go?

By JOSH ZUMBRUN
The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell to 289,000 last week, the second-lowest level of the year. Over the past four weeks the average for claims was 293,500. To put this in perspective, during their worst week of the recession in March 2009 claims were 665,000.

While other indicators of labor-market strength have yet to completely return to normal, the level of jobless claims is not only the lowest of the recovery, but it’s near some of the lowest levels of previous (and much stronger) recoveries as well.

BN-EA037_lowcla_G_20140807100111.jpg

The two longest stretches of economic growth in the last half century were the booms in the 1980s and 1990s. And jobless claims today are now near the lowest levels reached in those historic expansions.

Jobless claims can often be distorted around this time of year due to the patterns in which auto makers temporarily lay off workers while retooling their factories.The Labor Department, however, said no such patterns were distorting the numbers this week.

Whatever the case with seasonal adjustment patterns, “the data serve to reinforce the key point here, which is that the underlying trend in claims is declining steadily,” said Ian Shepherdson, the chief economist of Pantheon Macroeconomics, in a note analyzing the report.



BN-EA035_claiml_G_20140807095327.jpg

In fact, two weeks ago, jobless claims fell even lower than their best week during the 1980s. The level is only slightly above that reached in the 1990s. And another year of declining claims would put the low mark of the 1970s within reach.

This means the data for jobless claims are out of sync with other labor market data. The unemployment rate of 6.2% is still well above the 5% rate reached in the 1980s and few economists believe the economy is even capable of sustaining the 3.8% unemployment rate reached in early 2000 at the end of the 1990s tech boom.

The decline in jobless claims is even more striking when the size of the workforce is taken into account. For most of the late 1980s the U.S. had under 100 million workers covered by the unemployment insurance program. Today, it’s more than 130 million. Unlike unemployment, which is a share of the workforce, jobless claims are a raw number, unadjusted for the growing workforce.

BN-EA034_claims_G_20140807095232.jpg

When the economy’s growing size is taken into account, jobless claims are not just at the lowest level of the year, or the lowest of the recovery. They’re near the lowest on record. By this measure, a further decline in jobless claims would put the U.S. labor market in truly uncharted territory. (The Labor Department’s data doesn’t provide the level of covered employment for the 1960s, but it’s clear from the size of the population that the percentage of claims was much higher then than today.)

Skyrocketing jobless claims are clearly a sign of distress, and one of the clearest signs of recession. But it’s not at all clear that today’s low level of claims is healthy either. After all, unemployment is still not back to normal, part-time unemployment is very high and economic growth is fairly weak. Rather, the historically low level of claims may reflect a different trend we’ve been tracking on Real Time Economics: the decline in labor market dynamism.

The U.S. economy has long been characterized by its churn, with millions of Americans leaving one job and getting hired for a new one every month. It’s better when people voluntarily quit jobs than when they get laid off, but in a healthy and dynamic labor market, people experiencing either type of job separation can quickly get hired for new work.

That turnover is not recovering. Neither hiring nor quitting are back to their pre-recession levels. And initial jobless claims appears to be another indicator that the U.S. labor market is simply less dynamic than in the past.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom