I'll start by saying this will never happen, but economically there is no downside to doing what is proposed below, and in fact in the long run, it would make Cigna and a lot of other corporations better.
A company can replace a $150,000 American worker with a $35,000 overseas worker and save $115,000.
Why should the tax code allow that enormous labor-cost arbitrage?
Under a simple 1-to-1 offshoring tax, if a company moves a job overseas, the difference between the comparable U.S. labor cost and the foreign labor cost would be taxed 100% and made completely nondeductible.
$150k American worker
$35k foreign worker
$115k offshoring tax
$150k total offshore cost
The company can still offshore. It just doesn't get to keep the entire savings from replacing American labor.
What would happen?
If 10 million jobs were realistically capable of being performed domestically and 70% returned, rather than the 70% - 30% split towards HIH, and a model becoming more popular among more and more corporations.
7 million jobs could return to America
Roughly $1.05 trillion in annual compensation could shift to American workers
The remaining offshore work could generate roughly $345 billion in federal tax revenue
More income would circulate through American households and businesses
Companies would have greater incentive to invest in American workers, AI, automation and productivity
But isn't this bad for "American competitiveness"?
That's the argument we constantly hear, but competitiveness for whom?
If an American worker costs $150k but produces substantially more useful work than a $35k offshore worker, comparing salaries alone is meaningless.
A worker who takes five times as long to complete a task and requires substantial rework isn't actually cheaper simply because their salary is one-quarter as much.
And making an American company pay American wages doesn't make China more productive. A highly educated, highly productive American workforce can make America more competitive.
What may become less competitive is the company's profit margin and, potentially, shareholder returns.
That's not necessarily the same thing as making America poorer.
A corporation can increase its profits by replacing American workers with cheaper foreign labor without producing a single additional product, invention or unit of economic output. It has simply shifted economic value from American labor to corporate profits.
So what is the actual downside for America?
There is an argument that this could cause certain services to become more expensive, however, there is ample historical evidence that insurance, and other services go up when the consumer base gets smaller, I.e. off-shoring causing unemployment.
Since that argument doesn't actually hold any weight the policy would also mean:
More American jobs.
Higher American wages.
More domestic spending.
More tax revenue.
More incentive to invest in American productivity.
Less dependence on foreign labor.
The government gains revenue. American workers gain employment and income. Corporations may make less profit, potentially, but for Cigna this probably even isn't true because there is a larger consumer base, but they can still be profitable.
So here's the question, is there a downside to doing something like this?
No. It isn't difficult to implement, you can look at a companies tax roll, or employment history to find out how to tax properly. Figuring out who is offshoring isn't difficult. It would mean more American workers, less stress, more money within the country, more information within the country, a better society, but this isn't what they want. They want to maximize profits, a corporation is a soulless enterprise, that has one goal, it is neither good nor evil, and the sooner we realize that and start to treat people like people again, the better off we will all be.