Why is that fascinating? It's the tax holiday the tech megacorps have been asking for since the last one in 2004.
Why is that fascinating? It's the tax holiday the tech megacorps have been asking for since the last one in 2004.
Nothing about that is "fascinating". You're trying to make a narrative out of "hey, we want this." "OK, here it is."
You'd have more of a point if you were trying to say that all the doomsayers were wrong about the downsides of a tax holiday and here's the proof, but it's a bit early for that.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-04/apple-buy...
The difference is purely in accounting, they keep that money on a different line of their balance sheet and are unable to use it for domestic expenses without paying tax on it.
Most of the money isn't going to move at all after they repatriate it (they'll actually sell Treasuries to pay... the Treasury!). No part of "bringing back" the money will result in more money being invested in the US--it's already invested here!
In general, from reading a lot of your comments, you seem to act like an authority on this issue when most of your statements sound like a freshman who just finished his macro midterm. If you actually read the lobbying documents and testimony from many corporations, this deemed repatriation wasn't at the top of their lists, and in many cases was completely unwanted. Even further, the republicans actually ended up with a much higher tax rate than what was originally agreed, 15/8 vs 10/7. Of course, this was offset by long term corporate tax decreases but many large multinationals vigorously advocated for no repatriation and just a tax change, or at the least a very soft repatriation holiday and absolutely no deemed repatriation.
Fortunately, due to things like "balanced budgets" and "deficits", the Republican caucus was quite literally forced to enact a "deemed repatriation" on offshore funds to make the corporate tax changes viable in the least. "Deemed" as in mandatory, which you so incorrectly refuted above in a different comment, because again, without it the corporate tax changes would have made the government unable to follow up on current monetary obligations. Some would, justifiably, call such a lenient deemed repatriation analogous to a soft holiday, but the overall point is that corporations actually took a small loss on this facet of the tax bill to gain a huge win in other parts.
The whole fight over repatriation was mostly a sleight of hand trick to captivate the public while making changes that actually matter to the more permanent corporate tax code. After all, Apple even stated a couple years ago they were using the money sitting in Ireland to help finance their upcoming (now finished) campus. Where the money is matters very little compared to where it's spent since dollars are fungible.