Intel CEO: Things Need to Change in the U.S.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, it costs a billion more to make a factory here Paul? That must be rough with Intel being nearly bankrupt and being unable to afford an extra billion in taxes that go to government programs. I heard you're so poor Paul, that you couldn't afford to pledge to donate half your wealth like the Gates and Paul Allen have done.
Feel free to take your factories over to China and build much more affordable factories like Foxconn does. Matter of fact, take your entire business over there and try selling your products to them as well. If you don't want to pay taxes in the US, you certainly shouldn't be trying to peddle your wares over here. I'm sure they'll just stop eating for a year to be able to afford what you charge for one of your processors.

Don't try emptying your pockets to us corporate America, we all know you left your wallet in the car.
 
@2real
It amazes me how easy it is for the liberals to blame someone else. The current administration has had plenty of time to "fix" things that they didn't like but here we are two years into his term and we're in a "recession". Now we have Obama taxing the crap out of everyone and look where its gotten us... even deeper into the hole with unemployment still climbing. But go ahead and keep blaming the previous administration, at least until someone else comes along and fixes it then you and Obama can take the credit.
 
Unless you are self-employed, you better be grateful for "corporate greed." I have a job because somebody who already has money is willing to invest that money to make more money. If these people weren't "greedy" I wouldn't have a job and most of you guys wouldn't either. I want a gov that encourages weathly people to invest their money and create jobs in AMERICA. If our gov makes it way easier for these people to invest outside of America, they will.

I'm amazed how so many people don't understand where jobs come from and why we are losing them.

Increasing taxes on the rich when the economy is bad and unemployment is high has to be the dumbest thing I can think of. The rich should be taxed less so they will be encourged to take risks, invest, and hire people to make more money.
 
Governments, and that they only grow in one direction until overthrown or until they implode on their own is an evolutionary inevitability. Governments are never elected. Governments form when a group of people can come together in great enough number and power to control enough resources to keep the majority of the people down, or at their mercy. Either through violence, (armies) fiscally, (taxes) legally, (laws and regulations). Think of all the great civilizations/governments/empires of the world that have come and gone. Everything reaches a golden age and fades eventually. Nothing not even the mighty U.S. will last forever as a dominant world power, economic or otherwise. The writing is already on the wall, some people are just too dumb to see it, and others throw trillions at the wall to prop it up for a few more years before the whole mess of crap comes tumbling down. There is an inevitability in all this that is very clear to see for those that have eyes to see it. And, Otellini is probably right.
 
The U.S. has a mountain of debt that's growing every year, unfriendly government policies towards business, and a poor public school system. Not a recipe for a greater tomorrow.
 
It's common sense businesses will go where they can make the most money. When a country taxes and regulates businesses to death for their own misjudgments and poor execution/calculations on balancing budgets/books - businesses have the option to say enough is enough and move. Translation -> the US economy over the past few decades. I am not for big companies and favor the underdog, but bottom line is that it doesn't pay to invest or locate corporate and especially manufacturing within the US these days - this man is absolutely correct.


The solution has to start with the government (state and national) because the government is the problem and a huge reason for the start of the decline of one of the greatest running economies. You cannot have job creation without incentive for a corporation to do so. Our taxation and judiciary/legal system keeps incentive at bay. I do not wish to hear whining from those screaming "tax em for the little guy!!" and then complain about job creation or high unemployment - these people do not understand economics or common sense and end up hurting the "little guy" in the end.
 
solution: reduce the size of government, which time and time again has been proven to be far more costly and far less effective than private enterprise.

government jobs are on the liability side of the GDP, not the asset side. the sooner washington wakes up and realizes that, the sooner we can get costs under control and eventually lower *everyone's* taxes.
 
Another thing to take into consideration is this: while it is easy to demonize large corporations, and feel somehow vindicated upon reading that it would cost them an extra billion to setup a new plant, what you fail to realize is that what is a nuisance to large corporations is a noose for small business. It is hard enough to compete without the government throwing up massive road blocks (in the way of taxes and required filings masquerading as regulatory reform) that make it all but impossible to run a successful small business; and forget hiring people now. If I were going to hire someone today, I would pay the cost of them establishing their own small business so I could pay them as an independent contractor and avoid all of the oneous new regulations and fees.

As for large corporations, they know when they are not wanted. They will simply leave and take tens of thousands of jobs with them. Now how do you feel about Obama getting even with those evil, greedy corporations?
 
I don't think lowering corp taxes is going to fix everything.

Let say you match the corp taxes of other countries, you get the company to build a fab here. Who pays to monitor this plant for environmental regulations that other countries might turn a blind eye to? Would you as a consumer be ok with an increase in sales/property/income tax to cover the difference? You build a fab in Europe, their personal income tax and fuel tax is considerably more than here.

Everything gets offset, it's just a matter of who gets stuck with the bill. Other countries have much less infrastructure to deal with as well (Asian countries) and their population is less picky on what they get (or maybe they just don't have a right to complain in some cases).
 
"It's even more revealing to compare the actual rates of increase of the salaries of CEOs and ordinary workers; from 1990 to 2005, CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained a scant 4.3%. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage actually declined by 9.3%, when inflation is taken into account. These startling results are illustrated in Figure 7."

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
 
[citation][nom]Fa11ou7[/nom]The current administration has had plenty of time to "fix" things that they didn't like but here we are two years into his term and we're in a "recession".[/citation]

If it's that easy to change the world's economy in 18 months, do you blame Bush for his failure to 'fix' the middle east after 7 years of war? Maybe if we hadn't been dumping TRILLIONS of dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan we would still have the Clinton budget surplus that could have allowed us to cut business and income taxes?
 
WOW! Reason number 5000 I'll never send a red cent to Intel.....Reaganomics put this country in bad shape, not one black guy who wanted free heath-care a year in a half into his term. Its taken years of big business raping and right wing brainwashing to ruin this country. Its just weird how the economy only does good when a democrat is in office, yet that is somehow the republicans doing from the previous term, but this crap now, that started in 2006, is somehow Obama's fault. This crisis was caused by wall street traders hording oil futures and companies like intel shipping jobs to other counties so the CEO can buy one more diamond ferrari for his mistress. FYI 90%+ of CEO's are republican...hmmm weird. wall street is almost all rightwing...HMMM IF it looks like a duck, smells like a....
 
After reading some of the posts, its obvious that some (I do not want to point out certain people) of the poster's are living with blinders on. Although Intel is correct about the costs being higher in the US, I see no reason to give them any breaks. The main reason comes down to things such as taxes (which I dont believe should be cut for any business' [especially large ones]) as well as the "regulations" which are their to keep the employees safe. For example look as Foxx Con, no regulations so the employees are paid just enough to live and have next to no rights at work. Honestly though I can not see why Intel is complaining at all about the costs. It is a 53 Billion dollar company that pays the CEO (according to forbes) $14,581,900.00 in 2009. So obviously the company has the money to build new plants in the US, but chooses not to thanks to corporate greed.
 
"the AFL/CIO provides up-to-date information on CEO salaries at their Web site. There, you can learn that the median compensation for CEO's in all industries as of early 2010 is $3.9 million; it's $10.6 million for the companies listed in Standard and Poor's 500, and $19.8 million for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average. Since the median worker's pay is about $36,000, then you can quickly calculate that CEOs in general make 100 times as much as the workers, that CEO's of S&P 500 firms make almost 300 times as much, and that CEOs at the Dow-Jones companies make 550 times as much. "

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
 
If big corporations get the tax rates they get in other countries, it would still not bring jobs back to Americans.

Their next argument will be employees wages and benefits are to high. If you US government can have lower wages to the standards of competing countries we wouldn't have to outsource jobs.
 
The comments here make me fear for my country.
Corporations pay taxes? No, they don't, never have.
The taxes go into the cost of doing business which the end
customer pays. That's you 2real. So, if the taxes are
high enough, the corporation cannot charge a price the market
will bear. So... they go elsewhere to lower the price.

It's real simple.
 
[citation][nom]sentinelcomputers[/nom]Another thing to take into consideration is this: while it is easy to demonize large corporations, and feel somehow vindicated upon reading that it would cost them an extra billion to setup a new plant, what you fail to realize is that what is a nuisance to large corporations is a noose for small business. It is hard enough to compete without the government throwing up massive road blocks (in the way of taxes and required filings masquerading as regulatory reform) that make it all but impossible to run a successful small business; and forget hiring people now. If I were going to hire someone today, I would pay the cost of them establishing their own small business so I could pay them as an independent contractor and avoid all of the oneous new regulations and fees.As for large corporations, they know when they are not wanted. They will simply leave and take tens of thousands of jobs with them. Now how do you feel about Obama getting even with those evil, greedy corporations?[/citation]

"If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets -- individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html
 
[citation][nom]squiggs77[/nom]Government only grows one direction (bigger) until it gets taken over or falls apart. That's history. There are a lot of governments in this world getting close to the point of falling apart.[/citation]
Name one country that fell apart due to "big government"...countries fail for 2 reasons. 1. a stronger nation kills it or 2. they run out of natural resources. The US has had neither happen to it. Political leanings have never effected anything, PURE AND SIMPLE.
 
"In 2006, he oversaw the largest round of layoffs in Intel history when 10,500 (or 10% of the corporate workforce) employees were laid-off. Job cuts in manufacturing, product design, and other redundancies, were made in an effort to save $3 billion/year in cost by 2008. Of the 10,500 jobs, 1,000 layoffs were at the management level."

Just another conservative CEO justifying his multi-million dollar salary while the rest of us consumers/employees pay for it.
 
Corporate taxes are why they won't build in the U.S.? This makes me laugh.

Take away all the corporate taxes and they still won't build here. Why? Wages are too high.

Okay, cut those to match the 3rd world. Now will they build here?

Nope? Too many environmental and worker safety regulations.

I'm quite thankful that we're not going to join this race to the bottom.

I'm also lobbying for high import tariffs on goods that are manufactured in nations that don't have incomes and environmental regulations on par with us. I'd like to see chips produced by Intel in foreign sweatshops taxed at three or four hundred percent. Same goes of all the other "cheap" electronic goods. It'd be better for all of us in the long run.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom