Cry-Baby-trump takes the USA closer to all-out socialism by forcing American companies to turn over part of their profits for the right to do business

@ArishMell You are conflating several issues for the convenience of thinking there is only one issue. State controlled companies is a cornerstone of socialism and something that Americans, especially Republicans, especially maga-Republicans have railed against despite openly enjoying a public roadway system, SOCIAL security, public education, and many other social programs.

The government dipping into a company's revenue stream while dictating how that company should operate is in direct opposition to a free market point of view.

The construct of this socialist-style pay-off is in exchange for the federal government allowing the businesses to operate overseas, it will be turning over a portion of its earned revenue. It's no more a tax on foreign customers, companies, or countries than illegally applied tariffs. The company is selling products to foreign customers (which might be a nation, but also include foreign companies). For that sale, that company is earning revenue. That revenue is "owned" by the company. It is now turning over an agreed upon percentage of that earned revenue to the government... not as a tax (it still has to pay its "normal" tax obligation), it's not a tariff, and it's not a surcharge. It's a revenue-share arrangement.

It's a level of socialism that is foreign to the American free market system and it's confounding that Republicans in particular think it is something to celebrate... like being friends with Putin, stealing government records, and grabbing women by their genitals is celebratory.

The question of national (and world) security might be an issue worth examining as an additional concern. It's not the concern expressed here.

@MarkPaul I appreciate the American definition of "socialism" is often well to the right of how many foreign countries including the UK would define it, but in those countries it is not seen as the government controlling the company but simply taxing its profits.

Whether rightly or wrongly is debateable. Take too much and you limit the company's ability to invest. Take too little and if the company is foreign-owned, a lot of money that should be circulating domestically is lost abroad.

Usually though the tax is across the entire trading profit. Not as you have there, taxing only sales to certain countries, perhaps for specific reasons beyond simple revenue-raising.

For the UK "corporation tax" does make sense because so many manufacturing companies, previously publicly-owned services and even Premier League football "clubs" have been taken over by foreign, including American, firms and even countries, that such taxes do at least reduce the loss of money overseas.


I must admit though, I too am surprised that a strongly Right-wing US government would levy such a tax anyway - though as I say it is at least overseas customers' money coming into your country.

Also that it would do so as a way to allow exports previously banned or limited for security reasons - as you say, a different matter.

@DeWayfarer Well, you've drifted off-topic.

@MarkPaul you told me to go down that way...

@DeWayfarer Well, yeah. But, your comment still lacks relevancy.

@specman The companies have been prohibited from selling their chips in China apparently for national security reasons. By agreeing to turn over 15% of their earned revenue to the USA government, they are getting federal government approval to make those sales. This is over and above any tariffs and tax obligations the companies must still pay.

@MarkPaul

That doesn’t sound right

@specman It sure doesn't. It sounds dowright dirty.

@whowasthatmaskedman $$$ (USD)