It is against federal law to hire illegal aliens, but that law is not enforced. H-1B visas are being abused and the laws are not being enforced. By off-shoring jobs, U.S. corporations avoid fair labor laws protecting foreign workers, and not offering employee benefits that are typically provided to American workers.

One of the goals of the WTO, we are told, is to expand benefits to workers and lift all workers’ incomes. However, I'm not sure if that is what is happening. What we are seeing is the shipping of more manufacturing and high-tech jobs overseas where foreign workers have limited employee options, no ability to form unions, no collective bargaining, and limited benefits if any. This could be a dangerous downward spiral for everyone.

U.S.-based companies enjoy many benefits and protections. If these companies are to enjoy these benefits, they also must bear the cost of these protections. If companies consider that cost too high, then they have the choice of relocating their headquarters to China, Mexico or some other Third World country. If they move to Mexico, then they must consider that a Mexican national must own 51% percent of the company. If the corporate headquarters is moved to China, China will own 51% of that company. If they move to a third world country, they run the risk that their assets might be seized and sold off or just nationalized. In addition, it is not uncommon that special fees are paid to the local third world dictators, and high paying jobs must be provided to his friends and relatives. Most families of company officers do not want to live in third world countries regardless of the profit based bonus plan.

There are benefits for U.S. based businesses including the support of the U.S Department of Commerce whose support can help capture international business opportunities. Corporations receive other benefits including tax breaks and the flexibility to hire and fire U.S. workers when necessary. Many European companies have very strong restrictions on firing employees much in the same way, as the federal government is limited in firing government employees. Additionally, if a U.S. based company has an operation in a European country, and for whatever the reason, if that operation is closed, the company must pay, in some cases, three year's salaries and benefits plus other costs. It is unfair to U.S. workers for companies to take advantage of the benefits for being based in the U.S while ignoring responsibilities to our country and society that protects them, while extending benefits far superior to European some workers

We can't expect companies to behave morally when the nature of business is profit motivation. Fair and equitable laws balancing profits and fair treatment to workers has been part of the continuous evolution between corporations and employees. This model has led to the American industrial machine and the high quality of life that we have in America today. That model should be preserved. Although limited government is to be desired, there are some necessary functions that only the government can provide. The federal government should continue to play a role in developing a framework, which protects workers in our new technologically wired global economy, or we will realize a substantial decrease in the middle class. It is important to note that a strong healthy middle class provides the stability necessary for any country to grow and prosper. So the debate should include not only company profits, but also the economic and social stability of the United States.

Let's consider the loss of high-jobs in America. Technology has grown so fast over the past several years, that laws have not stayed abreast of economic employment dynamics. An initial step in this direction is to require that all U.S. based companies eliminate or reduce the off-shoring of jobs that provide services to U.S. customers; e.g. accounting services, help desk services, software development, etc. Currently many of these services are being shipped over the Internet and are not subject to import and export fees that are designed to protect U.S. workers and while balancing wage differentials.

All countries have import and export taxes for material goods, but with the advent of communications technology to deliver electronically based services, the laws have not kept up with the exportation and importation of these services which in turn mean jobs. International "Internet Service" taxation for business services may be the solution. Please note that taxing Internet Services is entirely different from taxing the Internet. Consider that both countries tax all international phone calls. The call is taxed, but the results of the conversation are not taxed. I am not suggesting that the Internet be taxed, but software development services and Internet support services in conducting international business trade should be subject to import/export taxation as well as other possible state taxes to help provide for equalizing wage differentials.

Watch for legislation to address the taxation of Internet Services and data product development. I believe this is one tax that American voters will support. Look for state taxes and federal taxes on international Internet support services and software development. If the legislators have not thought about taxing international services trade, it might be worthwhile to consider it now.

I have not heard of anyone proposing this tax, and if it is new to you, then you heard it here first.
This is the only tax I know that will help preserve and create American jobs and yield needed revenue. The U.S. and Georgia can use the tax revenue and more importantly, this will help preserve American jobs.