It was more a case of keeping it outside the US to avoid super high taxes. It is something that isn't just applicable to large global corporations, Apple is a good example who sit on many billions outside the US tax system, but also on a smaller scale with their ancient and backwards (in my opinion) views on gains from foreign investments. Just being a National is enough to be subjected to tax again. Therefore many are excluded from opportunities, and some will find ways around it. Either way the US doesn't gain regardless of the reason and outcome.
"Overwhelmingly"? 11 out of 50 with an opinion approved of Trump, so it's not completely one sided (pity ).
BTW for those that voted approve, the poll allows you to change your vote so it's not too late... 
I guess it the question should a US citizen(Corp) have their worldwide income subject to US income tax, regardless of current working location.
While resident in the UK you will also be taxable in the UK. Certainly on any income arising in the UK, but also depending on your circumstances, you may well be liable to UK tax on your worldwideincome.
So you would be doubled tax. So the issue arises are you holding the funds out the for a good reason or just to be taxed the least. Any corp. has the responsibility to ensure costs are kept to a min. So the job to ensure min. tax paid. Double edged sword.
So it's in DT intent to move financial activity to within the US, which has moved previously outside the US. So it's taxable activity in the US
Exactly, hence why there are scenarios whereby lowering the tax rate actually brings in more receipts.
Yeah but Trump thinks the Laffer Curve is the fake news media reporting increasingly more Americans find terrible “Alex" Baldwin's impersonation of him very funny.
It's not a very good message saying less means more if your trying to win elections. Like the silly politics in the UK of adding a lower rate of tax verse raising the 20% tax band upper amount.
The latter gives people more money the first just costs more money to collect and implement. The lower band gets more votes, so we do that and not the sensible thing.
The upper tax band is where the money and influence lies. So it's a balancing act: popular votes against money/influence.
However, exactly where the boundaries or tipping points are when a tax reduction equates to a receipt rise is not well predicted.
Especially when one considers that no matter how low you bring taxes, if there are loop holes, tax havens and other options, then companies will still make use of them.
A combination of the 'Trickle down economic effect' and 'The Laffer Curve' are oft presented as evidence for the benefits of reducing taxation as a means of increasing overall receipts.
The Trickle down economic effect has been widely debunked and shown to have the reverse effect on the economy - the more money the top percentage earn or keep in income, the more money is removed from general circulation in the economy.
The rich don't spend all their money, they accumulate it.
Giving the poorest or lowest earners more money sees an increase in tax receipts and the economy because most of their income goes straight back into the economy on goods and services.
The Laffer Curve does indeed predict that at a given point for a particular economy, that any further raise in taxation will see a decrease in receipts.
This is used to point out that lowering taxes can therefore increase receipts - however, the point at which this occurs in economies like the US and the UK, when all economic factors are modeled generally appears to be well above the current taxation levels. While there is much disagreement on exactly where these levels are and how accurate the models are, that even models used by the 1985 US Economics Bureau, based on their own data suggested it was @70% tax rate before the diminishing returns actually kicked in - i.e only at a tax rate above 70% would a tax cut mean an increase in receipts.
The problem with a suggestion like this, is that the thread becomes an echo chamber. All posts reflect the same view. After a while, it becomes a competition on who can say the worst thing about him, or post the funniest send up.
What makes interesting reading is seeing different views, especially those from the US, so that we can understand why he was elected and remains popular in some quarters.
I somehow doubt that Stuart has visited this thread since his last post in May.If you want to make waves @raduv1, try Feedback and Support.