Drug Company Pfizer To Save 35 BILLION In Taxes By Moving To Ireland

W

WhatInThe

SF VIP
Drug Company Pfizer will save an estimated 35 BILLION dollars in taxes, 2 BILLION over the next 2-3 years alone by moving it's headquarters to Ireland after a merger with Allergan based in Dublin. A deal like this is called an 'inversion deal' where the company winds up moving to lower or avoid paying taxes since it will not have to pay taxes brought into the US earned over seas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...enship-could-save-pfizer-35-billion-in-taxes/

There is also a practice called 'stripping' when a US subsidiary pays debt interest to it's foreign owner lowering US operation earnings yet the foreign owner makes money.

There are loophole and corporate tax rate issues to be dealt with. Wonder how much tax payer aid is sent to Ireland among other countries in money,military and/or any other misc support.
 

I doubt Ireland gets any aid from the US but it does get a lot from being a member of the EU. Lots of companies go to Ireland or Luxemburgh to avoid paying taxes.
 
I guess Ireland and others get enough companieS to tax for their government needs.

The big issue is how much a company like Pfizer got in the way of single issue tax breaks, subsidies etc. I found this on the first search. Pfizer got over 2.5 million dollars in tax breaks for one facility in Missouri but still closed a plant costing 600-1000 jobs. This goes on across the US on a regular basis wether it be a billionaire's sports arena or a corporation's factory or office building. This still filters back up to the federal tax payers.

https://main.stlpartnership.com/11-13-09-pfizer-county-tax.html

In 2010 the year after this plant closed Missouri had a 6% increase in federal aid.

http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org...tate-budgets-how-much-does-your-state-receive
 
Ireland makes a fortune from tourism (Americans seeking their roots is a huge percent of tourists).

Ireland was fairly poor before they agreed to the Euro for their currency. Suddenly they were the 'Celtic Tiger'. New roads, new houses (still unoccupied and pretentious looking IMO). They overdid it and now all is not so perfect. I visited in 98 before the Euro and prices were high but not outrageous. Since the Euro their prices are very high!
 
Pfizer closed its plant in Ann Arbor Michigan in 2002. The town was stunned by this loss. Home values decreased because of this. Many high paying jobs lost.
 
Ameriscot said:
Pfizer closed its plant in Ann Arbor Michigan in 2002. The town was stunned by this loss. Home values decreased because of this. Many high paying jobs lost.
Click to expand...

On one hand these corporations should be able to conduct business as they see fit. But the second they ask for tax breaks, exemptions, subsidies etc they owe to those who gave it to them.

I did hear that once there is a contamination issue in a plant and it cannot be readily fixed there is a chance that plant might be closed. I know people paid 30 dollars an hour on overtime to fix those issues so in some respects they will spend money but that function/work was irregular. Rather than hiring a dozen contractors for a month or two these companies should hire 1/2 dozen employees to stay in the plant year round for each shift to monitor those problems without overtime or shutting down parts of the plant for long lengths of time.
 
Debby said:
So what does Trump plan on doing about this?
Click to expand...

Probably congratulate Pifzer for successfully screwing the American people, by their reaping profits and NOT contributing back to the system that made them profitable.

It's really nothing new, American 'multinational' corporations have been pulling this sham for decades.

Edit:

Main article: Multinational corporation

[h=2]Multinational corporations and colonialism[edit][/h]See also: Charter company and Neocolonialism
The history of multinational corporations is closely intertwined with the history of colonialism, with the first multinational corporations founded to undertake colonial expeditions at the behest of their European monarchical patrons.[SUP][14][/SUP] Prior to the era of New Imperialism, a majority European colonies not held by the Spanish and Portuguese crowns were administered by chartered multinational corporations.[SUP][15][/SUP] Examples of such corporations include the British East India Company,[SUP][16][/SUP] the Swedish Africa Company, and the Hudson’s Bay Company.[SUP][17][/SUP] These early corporations facilitatedcolonialism by engaging in international trade and exploration, and creating colonial trading posts.[SUP][18][/SUP] Many of these corporations, such as the South Australia Company and the Virginia Company, played a direct role in formal colonizationby creating and maintaining settler colonies.[SUP][18][/SUP] Without exception these early corporations created differential economic outcomes between their home country and their colonies via a process of exploiting colonial resources and labour, and investing the resultant profits and net gain in the home country.[SUP][19][/SUP] The end result of this process was the enrichment of the colonizer and the impoverishment of the colonized.[SUP][20][/SUP] Some multinational corporations, such as the Royal African Company, were also responsible for the logistical component of the Atlantic Slave Trade,[SUP][21][/SUP] maintaining the ships and ports required for this vast enterprise. During the 19th century formal corporate rule over colonial holdings largely gave way to state-controlled colonies,[SUP][22][/SUP][SUP][23][/SUP] however corporate control over colonial economic affairs persisted in a majority of colonies.[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][22][/SUP]
During the process of decolonization the European colonial charter companies were disbanded,[SUP][18][/SUP] with the final colonial corporation, the Mozambique Company, dissolving in 1972. However the economic impact of corporate colonial exploitation has proved to be lasting and far reaching,[SUP][24][/SUP] with some commentators asserting that this impact is among the chief causes of contemporary global income inequality.[SUP][20][/SUP]
Contemporary critics of multinational corporations have charged that some present day multinational corporations follow the pattern of exploitation and differential wealth distribution established by the now defunct colonial charter corporations, particularly with regards to corporations based in the developed world that operate resource extraction enterprises in the developing world,[SUP][25][/SUP] such as Royal Dutch Shell, and Barrick Gold. Some of these critics argue that the operations of multinational corporations in the developing world take place within the broader context of neocolonialism.[SUP][26][/SUP]
However, multinational corporations from emerging markets are playing an ever greater role, increasingly impacting the global economy.[SUP][27][/SUP]
Click to expand...



[h=2]Criticism of multinationals[edit][/h]Main articles: Anti-globalization movement and Anti-corporate activism
Anti-corporate advocates criticize multinational corporations for entering countries that have low human rights or environmental standards.[SUP][28][/SUP] In the world economy facilitated by multinational corporations, capital will increasingly be able to play workers, communities, and nations off against one another as they demand tax, regulation and wage concessions while threatening to move. In other words, increased mobility of multinational corporations benefit capital while workers and communities lose. Some negative outcomes generated by multinational corporations include increased inequality, unemployment, and wage stagnation.[SUP][29][/SUP]
The aggressive use of tax avoidance schemes allows multinational corporations to gain competitive advantages over small and medium-sized enterprises.[SUP][30][/SUP] Organizations such as the Tax Justice Network criticize governments for allowing multinational organizations to escape tax since less money can be spent for public services.[SUP][31][/SUP]
Click to expand...
 
Debby said:
Thomas, does that mean you think he will flip-flop on his promise to bring jobs back to America?
Click to expand...

The dirty little secret that most politicians don't want us to know is that there really isn't a whole lot the president, by himself, can do about anything. What really needs to happen if we are going to have real change, is for congress to get off it's collective fat butt and actually consider and pass some legislation that can actually make a difference.

Until then nothing much is going to change -- the prez can't sidestep or override the tax code and other things that cause big companies to move overseas, even with much-maligned "executive orders." Until it becomes profitable for those companies to stay here instead of go elsewhere, they'll keep going elsewhere -- that's the only thing that will bring jobs back to America.
 
Butterfly said:
The dirty little secret that most politicians don't want us to know is that there really isn't a whole lot the president, by himself, can do about anything. What really needs to happen if we are going to have real change, is for congress to get off it's collective fat butt and actually consider and pass some legislation that can actually make a difference.

Until then nothing much is going to change -- the prez can't sidestep or override the tax code and other things that cause big companies to move overseas, even with much-maligned "executive orders." Until it becomes profitable for those companies to stay here instead of go elsewhere, they'll keep going elsewhere -- that's the only thing that will bring jobs back to America.
Click to expand...

A lot of people don't understand this. Trump keeps saying day one he'll do this or that. No, he couldn't. But it gets a lot of cheers from his supporters.

Something does need to be done. My sister is a fanatic about not buying anything that doesn't say Made in America. She has a LOT of trouble. I notice that myself as I like to do my clothes and shoe shopping when I visit. Don't like shopping with her as she freaks out when I buy some clothing that says Made in Bangledesh, etc.
 
Ameriscot said:
My sister is a fanatic about not buying anything that doesn't say Made in America. She has a LOT of trouble. I notice that myself as I like to do my clothes and shoe shopping when I visit. Don't like shopping with her as she freaks out when I buy some clothing that says Made in Bangledesh, etc.
Click to expand...

I once got a bee in my bonnet about buying only stuff made in Canada or the USA (on this continent) and pretty much had to give it up because I never found local made products. I don't buy clothes or shoes a lot, am not given to shopping in general, but just to replace things that were broken or worn out (like garden clippers, etc.) I could only find things that were made in China.
 
Debby said:
I once got a bee in my bonnet about buying only stuff made in Canada or the USA (on this continent) and pretty much had to give it up because I never found local made products. I don't buy clothes or shoes a lot, am not given to shopping in general, but just to replace things that were broken or worn out (like garden clippers, etc.) I could only find things that were made in China.
Click to expand...

I don't buy tons of clothes but do have to be picky about getting the best shoes to keep a foot problem from recurring. My sister is big on buying things made in Michigan when she can. She asked me if I only buy British made products at home. Yea, right. I buy Scottish strawberries. :D
 
Any company that takes tax payer subsidies in this case medicare for their product needs to have their feet held to the fire on taxation. They cry the taxes are too high but don't cry when they get reimbursed by the subsidies produced by those taxes.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/03/08/as-prices-soar-medicare-looks-to-change-how-it-pays-for-drugs/


Fine they want to cry too many taxes then move to THE free market where the consumer, the customer winds up determining the price one gets for their product and not how much they can get the local government to contribute.
 
WhatInThe said:
Any company that takes tax payer subsidies in this case medicare for their product needs to have their feet held to the fire on taxation. They cry the taxes are too high but don't cry when they get reimbursed by the subsidies produced by those taxes.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/03/08/as-prices-soar-medicare-looks-to-change-how-it-pays-for-drugs/


Fine they want to cry too many taxes then move to THE free market where the consumer, the customer winds up determining the price one gets for their product and not how much they can get the local government to contribute.[/QUOTE


I don't see how taking Medicare for drug payment is a taxpayer subsidy (and the article posted doesn't suggest that it is) -- it makes the consumer pay less for the drugs they actually receive. The article says Medicare is considering changing the way it pays for certain drugs, based on effectiveness.

I don't understand your argument. And the pharma companies ARE moving away -- how does that help us? And, I don't think the customer can ever be able to actually control how much drugs cost, because in this case the customer is a captive audience. The consumer doesn't choose what drugs they buy based on cost, except in the case of a generic over a name brand. Our doctors prescibe the drugs we receive, we don't choose them like choosing to buy a cheaper brand of jeans.
Click to expand...
 
"...I don't see how taking Medicare for drug payment is a taxpayer subsidy (and the article posted doesn't suggest that it is) -- it makes the consumer pay less for the drugs they actually receive. The article says Medicare is considering changing the way it pays for certain drugs, based on effectiveness.

I don't understand your argument. And the pharma companies ARE moving away -- how does that help us? And, I don't think the customer can ever be able to actually control how much drugs cost, because in this case the customer is a captive audience. The consumer doesn't choose what drugs they buy based on cost, except in the case of a generic over a name brand. Our doctors prescibe the drugs we receive, we don't choose them like choosing to buy a cheaper brand of jeans. ..."

................

Any third party reimbursement wether it's insurance, grants, loans, subsidies etc perpetuate, propel, enable or fester inflationary pricing. Otherwise known as somebody else is paying for it syndrome.

I should've included another link accompanying that article but it's recent & points out the problem of rising costs. According to the following link Medicare spending accounts for 13% of the federal budget. That's not including what the state governments spend on it. Spending on medicare isn't the problem, who really benefits and profits at the tax payers expense is.

http://www.seniorcorps.org/medicare/what-part-of-my-medicare-costs-are-covered-by-my-tax-dollars/

The free market is the free market. If someone will only pay 3 cents for it that's what it's worth on the market at that time. With third party reimbursement wether it's medicare or private sector insurance medical services & supplies(including drugs) are pricing based on the premise a third party, not the actual customer will pay for it.

Pharmacy companies moving do not help us. They & other companies are in effect trying to extort local & federal tax payers by crying poor mouth with too many taxes yet they still make "a" profit or take money which includes tax payer dollars. Yet still threaten the local economy with their no tax schemes & desires. I'm all for low or no taxes & profit. But it's hypocritical to take or make money from tax dollars and yet demand tax reductions & eliminations at the same time.
 
I read in a financial magazine that when Tyco International became incorporated in Bermuda (later moved to Cork, Ireland) that the CEO at the time was the infamous Dennis Kozlowski stated that it's every corporation's duty to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. If moving the company offshore is a benefit to do so, then we will do it. Tyco has several plants in other countries, but continue to be incorporated in Cork, Ireland to avoid paying U.S. taxes, although paying some taxes, such as real estate, cannot be avoided. It's a shame, but legal.
 
911 said:
I read in a financial magazine that when Tyco International became incorporated in Bermuda (later moved to Cork, Ireland) that the CEO at the time was the infamous Dennis Kozlowski stated that it's every corporation's duty to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. If moving the company offshore is a benefit to do so, then we will do it. Tyco has several plants in other countries, but continue to be incorporated in Cork, Ireland to avoid paying U.S. taxes, although paying some taxes, such as real estate, cannot be avoided. It's a shame, but legal.
Click to expand...

Oh not denying these are valid tax code tactics but how did they get that way for starters? And again is it not hypocritical for any company to cry about federal taxes yet at the sametime make or take money from the tax payers. It wouldn't be so bad if these companies kept their mouths shut but to even admit it's for tax purposes yet still take tax payer money is contradictory.

Speaking of Tyco. They and Johnson Controls announced their own inversion deal/"merger" earlier this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/01/25/johnson-controls-tyco-international-merger/79289344/
 
WhatInThe said:
Oh not denying these are valid tax code tactics but how did they get that way for starters? And again is it not hypocritical for any company to cry about federal taxes yet at the sametime make or take money from the tax payers. It wouldn't be so bad if these companies kept their mouths shut but to even admit it's for tax purposes yet still take tax payer money is contradictory.

Speaking of Tyco. They and Johnson Controls announced their own inversion deal/"merger" earlier this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/01/25/johnson-controls-tyco-international-merger/79289344/
Click to expand...


Everybody bitches and fusses about taxes. Do, for example, federal employees lose their right to bitch about taxes because they are taking taxpayer money for their work??

What we need to do is find a way for it to be profitable for American companies to stay in America (or unprofitable for them to move overseas) rather than worrying about what they bitch about as long as they stay within the current law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top