From 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. March 26, 2009.
Shuster: The outrage over AIG's bonuses has been justifiable but the $165 million dollars pales in comparison to another abuse which has been going on for much longer and involves a whole lot more money. We're talking about offshore tax havens. Many of the same companies that have received tax payer bailout money have also done business in these so called tax havens for years.
.....
And Joe what kind of money are we talking about with all of this?
Conason: Well David the last time this, anybody made a serious estimate of these numbers it came to something like $12 trillion sheltered in offshore tax havens world wide and an estimate of about $100 billion in lost revenues to the IRS. People avoiding taxes illegally in those same tax havens. And as you mentioned it's in fact all of the companies that have received tax payer bailouts, have some sort of tax haven subsidiaries, many of them with lot of them.
I mean you could imagine there's some reason to have I guess a branch in the Cayman Islands because people might want to do some banking there but why you would need ninety subsidiaries there is really an interesting question.
Considerably more than those bonuses indeed that have everyone's tail feathers in an uproar in the Congress. Joe Conason has more in his article at Salon AIG is chump change -- let's find corporate America's hidden billions. From the article.
But what reason other than evasion could there be for Goldman Sachs Group to set up three subsidiaries in Bermuda, five in Mauritius, and 15 in the Cayman Islands? Why did Countrywide Financial need two subsidiaries in Guernsey? Why did Wachovia need 18 subsidiaries in Bermuda, three in the British Virgin Islands, and 16 in the Caymans? Why did Lehman Brothers need 31 subsidiaries in the Caymans? What do Bank of America's 59 subsidiaries in the Caymans actually do? Why does Citigroup need 427 separate subsidiaries in tax havens, including 12 in the Channel Islands, 21 in Jersey, 91 in Luxembourg, 19 in Bermuda and 90 in the Caymans? What exactly is going on at Morgan Stanley's 19 subs in Jersey, 29 subs in Luxembourg, 14 subs in the Marshall Islands, and its amazing 158 subs in the Caymans? And speaking of AIG, why does it have 18 subs in tax-haven countries? (Don't expect to find out from Fox News Channel or the New York Post, because News Corp. has its own constellation of strange subsidiaries, including 33 in the Caymans alone.)
When the cost of these shenanigans was last estimated two years ago, the U.S. government's annual loss in revenue due to tax avoidance by major corporations and super-rich individuals was pegged at about $100 billion -- considerably more than a rounding error, even today. But of course that is only a rough assessment, as is the estimate of $12 trillion in untaxed assets hidden around the world. Nobody will know for certain until the books are opened and transparency is established.
So I assume that means it could be even higher. The Obama administration is looking into closing these loopholes but they've got a huge fight on their hands with this one. Conason is right though and these companies should not be allowed to be taking tax payer dollars and then potentially illegally avoiding paying their own taxes in the United States.
a republican moron will say this is because we want corporations to pay too much in taxes here. And they will also attempt to blame Clinton somehow.
It'll be a miracle if they don't ALL say that!
It will be a miracle!
but but without these tax havens for the wealthy they won't be able to afford the "trickle down" wealth us peasants are so grateful to enjoy....
$100 billion, no problem.
We waste that in the blink of an eye.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
For real...that's what? A week in Iraq?
Fri, 03/27/2009 - 10:18 — Alice X - Choms...
$100 billion, no problem.
We waste that in the blink of an eye.
_________________________________________________________
You batting your eyes at us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyoZaMMJZ58&fe...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
$100B will by a lot of pitchforks and kerosene...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Rich christian republicans hope to go to Haven when they die.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Quite the wordsmith today... Hmmmm, fall off the wagon by any chance? :-P
Study the symptoms not the virus...
..they actually think they are fooling someone. They fool no one with these tactics. What do you call it when you "bite the hand that feeds you"? Isn't that what's happening?
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
"Corporatism is UnAmerican"
"What did $700 Billion Buy US?"
"Hey Congress, Where's MY Money?"
"The Fundamentals of MY Economy
Are Not Sound."
"When Does The Trickling Start?"
"I'm Tired of Being Trickled Down On"
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
are going to feel as they hurry to the midnight post office drop-off on April 15th to hand their tax return (with a big check inside) to the friendly post office lady/man??
Not too happy I'll bet.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
... with this one.
First: Savings should not be taxed, because a tax acts as a dis-incentive to save.
Second: Corporations should not be taxed at all. Why? Because corporate earnings should not be taxed until paid-out to human beings in the form of wages or other benefits. As it is, corporate taxes are just passed on to "we the people" anyway, as a hidden tax that is simply tacked onto the price of goods.
Of course, in my leftist opinion, the corporate form of business should be outlawed entirely. Only the government itself should be able to do business as "a non-breathing entity."
we've already seen what happens when "a non-breathing entity" runs our government.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
That's because the corporations have taken over the asylum. Thanks for demonstrating my point.
About two hundred years ago, there weren't any corporations -- except a handful run by the government and very strictly regulated, to handle large projects like turnpikes and port authorities. Private enterprise was not allowed to form a corporation.
Today, not so much.
truth about corporations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbxZhx2eENo&fe...
Your first argument fails because you fail to qualify the term "savings." "Savings" can mean money invested in a fund/account, at which point we're a skip and a jump from allowing tax-free capital gains, which would benefit the very wealthy, and few others.
Your second argument fails because you refuse to acknowledge that corporations are essentially "persons" as defined by federal and state law, and should be taxed like the rest of us. While you later contend that "the corporate form of business should be outlawed entirely," that simply ignores the value of the corporate form, i.e., that you can operate a business without subjecting yourself personally to potential liability. Such a scenario would make it difficult to operate large business on an on-going basis, and my guess is that it would tend to concentrate ownership in fewer hands than now, if that's at all possible.
The insulation against liability is exactly the reason why corporations should be taxed -- you shouldn't be allowed the benefit (protection) without the cost (taxes). Furthermore, if corporations aren't taxed, you can bet your last dollar that people will start rearranging their personal income to look like corporate income, much in the way hedge fund managers pay the 15% rate applicable to capital gains while the rest of us pay taxes according to standard personal income rates, which are twice as high.
Additionally, I know enough small business owners who literally use their corporation's earnings as personal income, and then deduct their personal expenses for tax purposes. It happens a lot. And, if even you're not acting illegally, it's still possible to funnel income that might otherwise be considered personal income through a corporate form.
Finally, as far as both points are concerned, they simply fail to address the pertinent issue. The issue isn't whether to tax or not to tax, but rather the issue is how much to tax, and how to make sure the appropriate amounts of tax are being paid by the entity and recovered by the government. For example, say you put money in an account/fund/plan bearing interest at 8%, but you're taxed at 25% of all profit. Well, for every $8 you make, you get to keep $6, which isn't bad considering the ramifications of compounding interest. But say you get taxed at 50% -- well, now you might change your calculus, i.e., you might consider spending more given that the rate of return has decreased, depending on how much you really want the goods and services upon which you would theoretically spend your money. But none of this applies if you're hiding money you made inside the country outside the purview of our taxing authories, taking advantage of the protections and predictability of American markets without fulfilling your concommitment responsiblity to pay for the same.
People always argue that taxes create disincentives to economic activity. That works in introductory micro, but it fails to acknowledge wide range of benefits realized by taxing income, including the construction and maintenance of institutions and facilities that support additional economic activity.
Since corporations have been avoiding paying taxes, we've seen a huge growth in personal wealth of a handful of people while average salaries have gone DOWN.
So not only have we still been socked with lower wages (that you contend would be a result of corporate taxes being paid), but our tax base has suffered immeasurably, and so have our public services.
So long as corporations are entitled to be considered people (which I don't agree with), they need to act as citizens.
ok. so. the concept of a "bank" is, its supposed to store all the money that it says to its customers, is available. like, I have $2 or $3000 in savings right now. so. its a safe assumption, that my credit union, actually has $2 or $3000 laying around, if I want to close my account today.
right? yes? - but - we all know they don't have reserves for every customer. see "Its A Wonderful Life" for details...
ok. so. our flagship "too big to fail" corporations have their primary investments stored in these tiny little hurricane-prone godforsaken 3rd world tourist resorts. to avoid taxes. right?
so - my question is - if the brokeass locals decided to do a run on the bank and cash out all their accounts... or - if a rogue nation decided to drop a couple bombs on some key financial institutions in the Caymans...
would either of those two events, pretty much destroy the entire world's economy?
so, my first question is, how is that safe??
and if I may - a follow up - ok, see, I have to take my shoes off and give away my KY Jelly before I get on a plane, on the 0.000000001% chance that my sneakers or anal lube could explode and kill 200 people on a plane. micromanaged citizenry for the safety of everyone. right?
so my 2nd question, wtf do we allow these "too big to fail" institutions to store their money in the middle of communism and hurricanes and tiger shark infested waters ... when I'm not even allowed to drive an uninsured car to the grocery store and back?
the government considers you not "too big to fail".
So...you're fucked. Have a nice day.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/tt/
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
brb. slicing wrists. =\
sigh
Fri, 03/27/2009 - 11:08 — burnt
brb. slicing wrists. =\
__________________________________________________
Here's something for your other wrist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Of course if you're lucky you have one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MuuTjT8AXs
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJiAPJVCVcs
http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/353082...
remember all that money people had in savings accounts earning that measley 2.5% interest.
Then we deregulated! Access to Wall Street! Money Market Funds! 401K Plans. Access to investing, just like the grownups on Wall Street!! We're gonna be rich rich rich!!
So, is your bank balance the same as it was in 1980...or is it lower?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
How much tax is avoided by bribing...er...political contributions made to Dems and Reps in a year? It's all a tax write off, so wonder what the figure is.
those contributions and democracy make our economy hum and grow!
It's trickling.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Why are we so scared of corporations moving to countries with lower corporate tax rates when they pull this kind of garbage anyway?
this back in 2002.
And blown off cuz we aren't TV guys.
before that.
decades. Even Canadian corporations do it. It's the democratic way to do business!
before someone shafts thee.
when Corporations team up with our Senators and write their own rules.
"How much can ya contribute!"
"Oh a lot Senator! A whole Lot!"
This is the real meaning of freedom to the stinking rich. The freedom to stash trillions of United States dollars in offshore tax havens. No wonder they love to tell the poor soldiers to fight for "freedom". The corporate media treats the pitchforks meme like a joke at this point but it would be so sweet if people really had the guts to take on the filthy rich in some effective way.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
I think the poor should indian wrestle the rich on Pay Per View. And there can be 800 numbers to place bets.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
My hope is that the middle class will wisen up to progressive philosophy and start electing progressives to replace the moderates and centrists in Congress which are holding our new president back. Not quite a revolution, more like education to empower the masses and break the status quo.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
"Not quite a revolution, more like education to empower the masses and break the status quo."
That is a revolution of sorts.
The real rationale for the Iraq invasion handles about 4 ish trillion $ worth of oil and oil control. Why are the Caymans not invaded for similar gains? I bet the operation would be way less costly than the current wars.
I'll be in charge of the female prisoners.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
That would be both cruel AND unusual.
My kinda date.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh257/part...
Ja wohl.
I saved a copy.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
[COPY]:
Dear Representative,
I urgently seek your Support of H.R. 1207 / S513: The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.
Recently, it has come to light that the Federal Reserve is not accountable to American citizens. While we are required by law to give an accounting of every penny we come in contact with, the Federal Reserve, in contrast, can spend as it pleases without Congressional approval or oversight. In this economic crisis, we deserve an accounting of how our money is being spent-- H.R. 1207 will shed light on the Federal Reserve. President Obama pledged to bring transparency to Washington D.C., and by supporting this piece of legislation you are assisting the President in achieving this very worthy goal.
President Obama also pledged to work with both parties in order to find bi-partisan solutions to the problems facing America. H.R. 1207 currently has bi-partisan support amongst its 30 and counting co-sponsors. Your support for this legislation will demonstrate a willingness on your part to put the interests of your constituents before party loyalties.
It should be noted that a common error among many members of Congress is that Title 12, Ch.3, Subchapter II, §248b, which orders the Board of Governors to give an annual independent audit of the Federal Reserve, provides substantive information to Congress or the public. In reality, these audits do not provide Congress with the critical information of how the Federal Reserve is handling trillions of taxpayer dollars, and we need to untie the hands of the Government Accountability Office by reforming Title 31, section 714 to allow them to conduct full, comprehensive audits.
This critical legislation is short and concise, and can be read quickly. I encourage you to read H.R. 1207, and then swiftly act to support it. A lack of support suggests that you oppose the President's goals of transparency and bi-partisanship, and instead favor secrecy and division.
Thank you in advance for your attention. I have every expectation that you will do right by your constituents and support this measure to bring accountability to the Federal Reserve.
Sincerely,
Ref. [ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill... ]
Amended: [ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill... ]
Study the symptoms not the virus...
estimated at least $7 trillion has been stashed in offshore havens. However I've noticed how little the US government pays attention or cares.
Simple as that...
End corporate personhood...
We don't inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children - Native American proverb
If being cold means there's no such thing as global warming, does being full mean there's no such thing as world hunger?
No No. Those off shore accounts are to save money to be able to help people all over the world. You know like to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, and feed the hungry. Thats why those accounts are there. It has nothing to do with the Deadly Sin of Greed. As a matter of fact the Vatican has given approval to those off shore accounts for the very reason of unselfish giving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzmCPQ7jXcc
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Why aren't people like Joe who write these righteous articles on Salon or Mother Jones or Crooks and Liars making a more explicit effort to put Phil Gramm at the center of this. More than any other Senator, Gramm is personally responsible for ensuring that no one regulated the more egregious gambling-like aspects of the financial system (in 1984, the Congress actually preempted State anti-gambling laws to ensure that derivative trading would not subject the financial crooks to the gambling laws-but I digress) and then as the vice chair of the American division of a Swiss bank he ensured that these Wall Street gamblers could transfer their ill-gotten loot tax-free to off-shore holdings. The government is prosecuting the bank, people are going to jail, he ran it, why isn't he in jail???
Comments are closed on this entry