I won't rule here on whether corporations are good/bad or if they deserve the profits. I'd just like to posit my analysis of the situation, which is that:
1) It's been well documented in the financial press now that banks and companies are holding more cash than ever. In fact, Apple is holding more on hand than the gov't.
2) This tax break would be a one time infusion. Corporations can't count on it recurring, if say, they wanted to plan on using it to fund operating expenses (e.g. salaries).
3) Historically, older corporations do not hire sizable numbers of workers. To what extent are these the companies with offshore profits?
Ignoring any ethical judgements, to say that it will help boost the economy seems dubious to me.
Again, ignoring ethical judgements, I think it is fun to consider other consequences, like what effect it may have on corporations' investments on foreign soil. We might not be able to make jobs here, but maybe we could nudge them away from making jobs there? It only works if you think the world economy is not interconnected though.
Anyway, my point is that, yes, there are good moral arguments why this push is reprehensible, and people are making interesting points as such here. Going the other way, I'd like to think about what the hardheaded economic realities are (and they certainly are not about direct job creation). What if it merely adds dollars that these corporations could use for other causes, like lobbying? To what extent do we consider these activities to be good or bad? Donations to charity and contributions to PACs are often one-off.
One thing that tickles me is that when donations are big, they go into endowments, which are managed by various financial companies. Good for the charities, but it's not that there are other vested interests. ;-)
1) It's been well documented in the financial press now that banks and companies are holding more cash than ever. In fact, Apple is holding more on hand than the gov't.
2) This tax break would be a one time infusion. Corporations can't count on it recurring, if say, they wanted to plan on using it to fund operating expenses (e.g. salaries).
3) Historically, older corporations do not hire sizable numbers of workers. To what extent are these the companies with offshore profits?
Ignoring any ethical judgements, to say that it will help boost the economy seems dubious to me.
Again, ignoring ethical judgements, I think it is fun to consider other consequences, like what effect it may have on corporations' investments on foreign soil. We might not be able to make jobs here, but maybe we could nudge them away from making jobs there? It only works if you think the world economy is not interconnected though.
Anyway, my point is that, yes, there are good moral arguments why this push is reprehensible, and people are making interesting points as such here. Going the other way, I'd like to think about what the hardheaded economic realities are (and they certainly are not about direct job creation). What if it merely adds dollars that these corporations could use for other causes, like lobbying? To what extent do we consider these activities to be good or bad? Donations to charity and contributions to PACs are often one-off.
One thing that tickles me is that when donations are big, they go into endowments, which are managed by various financial companies. Good for the charities, but it's not that there are other vested interests. ;-)