So, you might agree that Obama was repeating a "talking point" which had some small grain of truth in it, but the wording was manipulated to make it sound like something different than it is?No, there is no specific break for moving offshore,
After looking at the facts, then, Romney's response was entirely appropriate.
You and I agree, that there is enough incentive for cost-saving by moving offshore, that such expenses should not be allowed as an expense.
Jobs have been moving offshore for a LONG time already. I can't recall when I started speaking to call centers in India, but it's surely been a while ago. So, it is not surprising that corporations have a lot of $ sitting outside the US.corporations are sitting on $6 trillion in cash right now, $3 trillion of that is profits being held offshore untaxed.
And, the fact that they are sitting on so much cash right here, has to mean that they have reservations about how expanding their businesses in ways that will be profitable. Waiting for tax code to be changed in a permanent fashion might help them do their 5- and 10-year plans.
It is possible that as long as their is a govt that will not cut spending (won't even produce a budget that reveals & commits to their intentions), but continues to look for ways to siphon off their profits to increase revenues available to spend on things which will further restrict business (like giving more $ to increase the size of the EPA to come up with more regulations), the incentive to use that cash is dampened.
My own theory is that if Romney is elected, because business believes he will open up opportunity, they will immediately start planning for expansion. By the time Romney would take office, plans would be in place and the economy will get a rapid boost; similar to what happened with Reagan and the recession he had to deal with. If Romney then starts to make good on his promised policies, business/economy should start moving quickly. If Romney is elected, I'd expect the stock market to respond upward on Nov. 7.
The hope would be that Romney wouldn't be quite as naive as Reagan in believing that Ds will cut spending AFTER they raise taxes. Romney's experience in MA as governor could help him there.
Sweden's mode was to cut spending first ... then they were able to reduce taxes. They had no real choice since their taxes were already so high. When they cut spending it had to do with deficits growing too large. Since Sweden is basically a socialist-leaning govt, they may not even have realized that the GDP would grow as much as it did as the "secondary" consequence of reducing deficit spending. Growing GDP meant that they collected more gross revenue, with a lower tax rate.