Good For Him...

[mikoyan29]

http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/03/18/S...6711363639857/

I realize that it is political grandstanding but it is an issue that needs it. I'm getting sick and tired of companies that owned ships that are not US flagged getting assistance from US entities. If pirates attack a Liberian flagged ship, we should tell the owner, "WEll you wanted to skirt certain US regulations and skip out on US taxes, maybe the Liberian Navy can help you. What they don't have a Navy with those capabilities? Tough shit. Now our Navy can help you if you pay X amount of money".

Carnival has been in the news quite a bit lately. They are incorporated outside of the US, use non-US flagged ships, yet who bails them out when they have issues like this. Maybe if they had to pay for this stuff, they will change their minds. And honestly, this fits the pay as you go model the Libertarians prefer.

[HYHYBT]

I could see letting the ship owners stew in their own troubles, if not for their *passengers* being largely Americans. We should leave our own citizens stranded at sea or let them be taken by pirates just because of where the ship they're on is flagged?

Billing for it later is perhaps reasonable... IF it's known upfront. Changing the rules retroactively, though, is still wrong.

[lordlundar]

So does this mean that the US is going to stop being "world police?"

Yes, I'm serious on this. The US military has no issue sticking their collective nose in something not involving them when they can benefit from it but apparently if there's no benefit then it's a chore.

[drunkenwildmage]

A couple points here..

1) Where the ship is flagged from: It goes to show you how much the US regulations and taxes have a big tax burden on operators. When the company's see a big enough difference in the bottom line to flag the ship outside of the US, then that tells me you need to take a long hard look at the US regulations and taxes to make them more realistic.

2) US Coast Guard. Part of the function of the Coast Guard is to help boaters and ships that are in trouble off the coast of the US. In this case, I believe all the events in question happened. of one of the US coasts, so they were just doing on of their functions.

On a side note:

With some many other cruise lines out there Carnival will see the effect of the issues in their bottom line as passengers will start flocking to other cruise lines, if they haven't already. That will cause them to fix their problems more then anything.

[Rapscallion]

1) Where the ship is flagged from: It goes to show you how much the US regulations and taxes have a big tax burden on operators. When the company's see a big enough difference in the bottom line to flag the ship outside of the US, then that tells me you need to take a long hard look at the US regulations and taxes to make them more realistic.

A very valid point.

With some many other cruise lines out there Carnival will see the effect of the issues in their bottom line as passengers will start flocking to other cruise lines, if they haven't already. That will cause them to fix their problems more then anything.

Au contraire! A few 'special offers' and cheap prices and the hordes of customers will flood back. Memories are short when prices are cheap.

Rapscallion

[mikoyan29]

A couple points here..

1) Where the ship is flagged from: It goes to show you how much the US regulations and taxes have a big tax burden on operators. When the company's see a big enough difference in the bottom line to flag the ship outside of the US, then that tells me you need to take a long hard look at the US regulations and taxes to make them more realistic.

2) US Coast Guard. Part of the function of the Coast Guard is to help boaters and ships that are in trouble off the coast of the US. In this case, I believe all the events in question happened. of one of the US coasts, so they were just doing on of their functions.

On a side note:

With some many other cruise lines out there Carnival will see the effect of the issues in their bottom line as passengers will start flocking to other cruise lines, if they haven't already. That will cause them to fix their problems more then anything.

I can agree with part II. The Coast Guard is supposed to help vessels in distress regardless of their origin.

On Part I, I'm not so sure. Why should we lower our standards to the rest of the world? Most of the ships that service US ports in the Great Lakes are US flagged ships and I rarely hear about things like engine fires, etc. Maybe there is some wisdom to those regulations. But I guess my bigger point, how many of these companies think they would be successful if they were in other parts of the world. Part of their success is due to many things taken for granted that are built by the taxpayers of this country. But hey, when certain individuals are talking about "takers", they are usually referring to welfare queens.

[drunkenwildmage]

Au contraire! A few 'special offers' and cheap prices and the hordes of customers will flood back. Memories are short when prices are cheap.

Rapscallion

Cheap prices will only get you so far so.. If your still having engine fires, and other problems, then even the cheap prices will stop working after a while. In reality, they need to get their problems fixed, then use the cheap pricing model to bring people back..

On Part I, I'm not so sure. Why should we lower our standards to the rest of the world? Most of the ships that service US ports in the Great Lakes are US flagged ships and I rarely hear about things like engine fires, etc. Maybe there is some wisdom to those regulations. But I guess my bigger point, how many of these companies think they would be successful if they were in other parts of the world. Part of their success is due to many things taken for granted that are built by the taxpayers of this country. But hey, when certain individuals are talking about "takers", they are usually referring to welfare queens.

I'll have to check, but I think Great Lakes shipping operates under a different set of regs then ocean going ships, so that might have something to do with it. Also, the best info I can find, only 55 - 60 out of an est 120 lake freighters are flagged in the US.

The problems with Regulations and taxes in general, is you have to be realistic with that people/companies are willing to accept. What' the point of setting new regulations if people/companies are not going to follow them anyways?


As far as the takers.. I do agree, with you. The Welfare Queens/Entitlement whores/etc the most visible but I feel that corporations also get to much from the government as well. IMHO I feel that the government shouldn't be giving money out to anyone unless they have a true need for it like being on disability, and physically unable to work

If we use them or not, we all take for granted the system we have in place in the US for rescue. In this case it was the US Coast Guard being used. That's what they are there for.

[Aethian]

I'll have to check, but I think Great Lakes shipping operates under a different set of regs then ocean going ships, so that might have something to do with it. Also, the best info I can find, only 55 - 60 out of an est 120 lake freighters are flagged in the US.

Yes we do. We have coverage under both the US Coast Guard and the Canadian equivalency both of which I think will come to rescue a ship caught in one of our epic lake storms. I do believe, and I'm not fully sure since its been a long time since I've had to do the research, ships in our waters pay something like the 911 fee. Or at least that's how it was explained when I was in 10th grade. Now that I'm questioning myself I really need to look into it.

But Anyhoo if my memory is correct even if the service isn't used they pay the fee so that when something does happen they don't have to worry about rescue and the costs that come with. I think the only thing they might get charged for is if the rescue goes past that immediate rescue set. Like if the ship is big enough to need multiple boats, or if it was a fire that caused multiple fire tug boats to use supplies.

Now watch when I can get home and look it up all of this has probably changed. :P

[crashhelmet]

A couple points here..

1) Where the ship is flagged from: It goes to show you how much the US regulations and taxes have a big tax burden on operators. When the company's see a big enough difference in the bottom line to flag the ship outside of the US, then that tells me you need to take a long hard look at the US regulations and taxes to make them more realistic.

But just how big is that "big tax burden"?

How many of these companies incorporate and flag out of countries that have no taxes or pay less than what they'd pay to the US?

It's like corporations here in the United States. have you ever wondered why so many companies are incorporated in Delaware despite having zero employees in the state?

Top 5 Reasons to Incorporate in Delaware

If they're going to find legal loopholes to skirt paying taxes and thus not contribute to the services they require, they should have to pay for them after they are acquired.

Take them to collections. Deny their right to do business within our nation until fees are paid.

[Gravekeeper]

The problems with Regulations and taxes in general, is you have to be realistic with that people/companies are willing to accept. What' the point of setting new regulations if people/companies are not going to follow them anyways?

This has nothing to do with realism and everything to do with corporations being greedy whores willing to skirt every possible law and regulation possible to squeeze out more of that sweet sweet money.

Carnival Cruises controls 50% of the world market in cruise ships and is an American company....and pays 0.6% in taxes to America. Its not obligated to follow US safety regs nor pay income tax because they register ships out of the Bahamas. Yet they rely on the US coast guard to bail them out and have a atrocious safety record. They'll gladly act American when they can grab a few hundred mil from the government ( Such as during Katrina ) but the rest of the time they use every loophole possible to avoid paying a cent for anything.

The majority of rich fucks in America basically enjoy all of the advantages of using America to make money while likewise avoiding having to contribute any of that money to support the very system they profit from.

They don't evade taxes because because US taxes are high too high, they evade them because the US economic system is corrupt enough to allow them to do so.

[wolfie]

In a lot of ski areas, people who ski "out of bounds" and need to be rescued are billed for the search-and-rescue service. After all, they took an excessive chance of needing rescue, so why should the public pay? This could be used as a precedent. If Carnival ships are breaking down and needing rescue at an excessive rate, they should either shape up or accept the consequences (although I'd prefer to see them banned from U.S. ports if they can't meet minimum safety standards, rather than being billed for the rescue)

Most of the ships that service US ports in the Great Lakes are US flagged ships and I rarely hear about things like engine fires, etc. Maybe there is some wisdom to those regulations.

Shipowners on the Great Lakes have an incentive to use U.S. flagged ships. Under the Jones Act, only a U.S. flagged ship is allowed to travel between U.S. ports. On the Lakes, that means that for a non-U.S. ship to do business at a U.S. port, it would need to have come out of a Canadian port, and be going back to a Canadian port, restricting the loads it could take. It's also why the cruises to Alaska depart from Vancouver instead of Seattle, and have at most one port visit in Alaska.

It's like corporations here in the United States. have you ever wondered why so many companies are incorporated in Delaware despite having zero employees in the state?

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a few states started imposing domicile restrictions on corporations (i.e. a corporation is only allowed to do business in state X if it is incorporated in either state X, or a state representing a minimum of 50% of the person-years of residence for its officers in the 5 years prior to incorporation). For example, a corporation has 6 officers when it's incorporated. In the preceding 5 years, unless some combination of number of people and time of residency adds up to a minimum of 15 years residency in Delaware, incorporating in Delaware locks them out of doing ANY business in state X.

[HYHYBT]

I believe a significant part of the extra cost for US ships is labor regulation: the same minumum wage, overtime, etc we all rely on. Do you want to do away with that?

[mikoyan29]

Shipowners on the Great Lakes have an incentive to use U.S. flagged ships. Under the Jones Act, only a U.S. flagged ship is allowed to travel between U.S. ports. On the Lakes, that means that for a non-U.S. ship to do business at a U.S. port, it would need to have come out of a Canadian port, and be going back to a Canadian port, restricting the loads it could take. It's also why the cruises to Alaska depart from Vancouver instead of Seattle, and have at most one port visit in Alaska.

Well there is that. But I rarely hear about trouble on Great Lakes ships with the youngest being about 30....and the oldest being over 100. But hey, we must race to the bottom with wages, environmental regulations and what not because they cost too much. Tell me, why should we keep bending over backwards for the 1% when they do basically shit for the rest of us?

[drunkenwildmage]

But just how big is that "big tax burden"?

How many of these companies incorporate and flag out of countries that have no taxes or pay less than what they'd pay to the US?

Considering the US has one of the highest Corporate Tax rates in the world what do you expect? Businesses are in business to make money, either for their share holders, or for the owners. They are going to use every tool in their tool box to max profits, even if those tools include incorporating in a foreign country, or flagging there ships an on oversea port. It goes back to, when setting the tax rates you have to be realistic. A high tax rate isn't going to do you any good when corporations or individuals are chased off.

It's like corporations here in the United States. have you ever wondered why so many companies are incorporated in Delaware despite having zero employees in the state?




Top 5 Reasons to Incorporate in Delaware

That should tell you something right there.

Corporations
If they're going to find legal loopholes to skirt paying taxes and thus not contribute to the services they require, they should have to pay for them after they are acquired.

Take them to collections. Deny their right to do business within our nation until fees are paid.

In the case of the Cruise Lines, what would happen is they will start docking their cruises in the Bahamas’ or some other Island and instead of flying to Miami to get on the boat, you would have to fly to Island, missing the US all together. In the case of Caravel, (since they also have offices in UK) They could also move their headquarters to a foreign country, costing a number of US based jobs, and the opportunity to collect the taxes from those also.

This has nothing to do with realism and everything to do with corporations being greedy whores willing to skirt every possible law and regulation possible to squeeze out more of that sweet sweet money.

You say that like it's a bad thing, and granted people have done some evil things for money, but without the profit motive or the incentive of wanting to make money then 3/4 of the items we take for granted wouldn't have been invented.

Carnival Cruises controls 50% of the world market in cruise ships and is an American company....and pays 0.6% in taxes to America. Its not obligated to follow US safety regs nor pay income tax because they register ships out of the Bahamas. Yet they rely on the US coast guard to bail them out and have a atrocious safety record. They'll gladly act American when they can grab a few hundred mil from the government ( Such as during Katrina ) but the rest of the time they use every loophole possible to avoid paying a cent for anything.

The majority of rich fucks in America basically enjoy all of the advantages of using America to make money while likewise avoiding having to contribute any of that money to support the very system they profit from.

They don't evade taxes because because US taxes are high too high, they evade them because the US economic system is corrupt enough to allow them to do so.

Not sure where controlling 50% of the world market has anything to do with US taxes.

I go back to the statement I made before.. The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest, if not the highest in the world. So, companies feel they need to find a way to use foreign shelters, loop holes, etc flags, etc (What ever you want to call it) to avoid the high US tax burden. Want to fix that? Just lower the US corporate tax rate to a level that is more realistic, eliminate the loop holes, and instead of using trying to use companies for the cash cow that the US government is doing now. What will happen, is the companies will see that it's more profitable (I know, there's that nasty profit word again) moving everything back to the US on 2 fronts. 1), it’s a lower tax rate, and 2) the companies would save on having CPAs, Tax specialists, Tax attorneys etc, because they wouldn’t be needed on as grand of scale. Thus, with a lower tax rate, simpler tax laws, and regulations that are realistic, tax revenue should go up.


(Sources for Corporate tax rates around the world)

http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/servic...tes-table.aspx


http://www.cato.org/blog/us-corporate-tax-rate-highest (From 2010)

http://taxfoundation.org/article/oec...ates-1981-2012

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

What I find fascinating is the persistence of a mindset that doesn't acknowledge the free rider problem in government, taxes and regulations exist to eliminate that problem. Corporations out of rational self interest will seek to minimize their exposure to taxes because that's their entire job: to maximize shareholder income. Does something need to constitute an onerous burden for them to incorporate elsewhere? Hell no. Just enough of a financial advantage and enough scale that they can pull it off. Will they say it was onerous? Of course. When you're talking in the billions, even a .01 reduction in taxes is real money.

So in most countries you end up with this wacky setup where, private industry provides for most people in terms of jobs and products. Where the private sector fails, the public sector takes up the slack (defense, safety, infrastructure, welfare). The private sector than tries to minimize its burden of the costs which is essentially getting out of the bill after you've already had your Talisker 18 Year.

You know what, nevermind... I just need a drink.