 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drogue
That answer your question? Maybe not most of it to France, but more than any other nation. |
22 % is correct for 2001. About 10 % for the UK.
Pretty much in line with agro sector value added (I think 23 % for France, 7-9 % for UK).
I'd scrap CAP tomorrow if it were my decision, but that crap about the big french CAP rip-off is just rubbish. Btw, there's also not that much difference between UK and French net contributions to the EU budget.
GP: Yes there are national subsidies too. Makes the total of ~100 billion.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Special tax breaks for income from exports for US corps, attributed according to campaign contribution (which makes negotiating adjustments so cumbersome).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
this thread does fine
* Bereta_Eder adds a bit of salt
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
kidicious, ame3rican fast foods came in and closed the polish cheap restaurants. that's all i know.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003 time: 21:28
|
|
The Polish government should subsidize some loans so people can get into the action.
Last edited by Kidicious on 08-05-2003 at 04:58
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
No wonder you teach ski GP.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
What happened? You now fail to seduce even bored old ladies for a living?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Are you saying that the amount of the tax break depends on a firm's political campaign contributions?"
Pretty much so. This thing would be extremely easily fixed by exempting foreign revenue from US taxation in general - ie a tax cut (the scheme goes a bit further in some aspects IIRC, but a key problem is the US idea to tax US "citizens" whereever they make their money). It's really funny that the EU is doing the US a big favour there, which goes, of course, against the interest of your political elite.
But the lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail about every dollar, and it seems their worst nightmare is another company profiting more from adjustments. Congress the good ***** that it is, obliges...
Or how do you explain that they just didn't pass the simple general exemption?
"On Jan. 31, 1951, the UN SC unanimously passed a resolution that it was no longer "siezed" of the complaint concerning the agression of the North Koreans."
Looks like a procedural decision to no longer seek to resolve this complaint, probably because north Korea did not respond. Does not affect the authorization of force.
Last edited by HershOstropoler on 08-05-2003 at 11:32
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
This article is in the NYT archive, so there's only the free summary:
quote: Business/Financial Desk | September 20, 2002, Friday
A Civil War Within a Trade Dispute
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS (NYT) 1496 words
Late Edition - Final , Section C , Page 1 , Column 2
ABSTRACT - Obscure trade dispute between Europe and US has turned into political brawl over $100 billion in corporate tax breaks that pits many of America's biggest companies against one another; business interests are so divided and corporate intrigue so intense that Congress has become all but paralyzed over issue; consequences of stalemate could be severe; World Trade Organization has repeatedly ruled that American tax break for what are known as foreign sales corporations amounts to illegal trade subsidy; arrangement provides huge benefit to many multinationals by allowing American companies to reduce their taxes on profits from exports by channeling sales through foreign sales corporation, based in low-tax country; trans-Atlantic trade war could develop if US refuses to eliminate or fundamentally change break; European Union is entitled to impose up to $4 billion in retaliatory tariffs on American exports; House Ways and Means Committee chairman Bill Thomas has sponsored bill aimed at resolving dispute; many fellow Republicans, including Rep Jennifer Dunn, oppose plan; photo (M) What began as an obscure trade dispute between Europe and the United States has turned into a political brawl over $100 billion in corporate tax breaks that pits many of America's biggest companies against one another.
In the behind-the-scenes lobbying battle, Boeing is lining up against General Motors, Walt Disney against AOL Time Warner, Caterpillar against Deere, and Microsoft against I.B.M. |
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Towards the third world? Yes, it's impossible to tell which one is worse.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Are you saying that the amount of the tax break depends on a firm's political campaign contributions?"
Pretty much so. This thing would be extremely easily fixed by exempting foreign revenue from US taxation in general - ie a tax cut (the scheme goes a bit further in some aspects IIRC, but a key problem is the US idea to tax US "citizens" whereever they make their money). It's really funny that the EU is doing the US a big favour there, which goes, of course, against the interest of your political elite.
But the lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail about every dollar, and it seems their worst nightmare is another company profiting more from adjustments. Congress the good ***** that it is, obliges...
Or how do you explain that they just didn't pass the simple general exemption?
"On Jan. 31, 1951, the UN SC unanimously passed a resolution that it was no longer "siezed" of the complaint concerning the agression of the North Koreans."
Looks like a procedural decision to no longer seek to resolve this complaint, probably because north Korea did not respond. Does not affect the authorization of force. |
Huh? I think you are saying that the lobbying for the tax break itself consists of political campaign support. Not that individual companies have specific exampetions based on campaign contributions. If the latter, please give me the specific text of the act that supports this.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"I think you are saying that the lobbying for the tax break itself consists of political campaign support."
No, just that the corps bought the exemptions via lobbyists.
"Not that individual companies have specific exampetions based on campaign contributions. If the latter, please give me the specific text of the act that supports this."
One-eyed red-haired lesbians on drug rehabilitation in west virginia - legislation.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|