It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Offshore 'Tax Havens' of The U.S. Corporate Elite

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
those rats....they are abandoning a sinking ship with their billions offshore.

how proper...
revolution, here we come.
and don't ask then why it happened - because we all knew exactly why...




posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ll__raine__ll
 


No. I'm for no bailouts and no corpoate or individual income tax. I am of a consumption tax and a small government that protects us.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Dont be mad at the corporations for not wanting to pay taxes, they are just smart and shrewd business people.

Be furious that the government is giving them bailout money.

Take away taxes from the government and corruption is eliminated and power is given back to the people to be free to choose how they live.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 
How did something as fundamental as having a home to live in become the vehicle for the lifetime financial enslavement of so many in America?

Buy a house you can afford or rent.
Tents are on sale at walmart. Enjoy nature.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bejing
 


It was the government basically forcing the banks to lend out more to sub prime borrowers or put another way people who had no business owning a home.... the socialism of America was around before these bailouts.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


You make some great points but what can we expect from capitalist politicians? Capitalism encourages maximum profit, greed and corruption.

To make matters worse we all know that campaigns are exclusively funded from corporate "donations"; just a fancy name for bribery.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


You complain so much when a company leaves your country, when your country cripples them with huge taxes?


If you have a moment read this exchange between Thom Hartmann and Larry Beinhart.

The general idea is that the tax breaks are offered to corporations that reinvest in their own companies, their employees well being and their countries prosperity and well being.


Basically at the top end. And there's a direct correlation between high tax rates and economic growth. When we have had our highest tax rates, or when we have higher tax rates, we have a lot of economic growth. And the period of our greatest growth of course is World War II and the post-World War II years when the top marginal tax rate varied between 88 and 92%, which is almost impossible to conceive of nowadays.

And the consequence of that was that, number one, I can't think of any and I can't remember any dynastic families that emerged during that time period. There were no multibillionaires who suddenly -- no John Rockefellers, no Andrew Carnegies, no Bill Gates's, no Phil Knights, no dynastic billionaires who emerged because, you know, 92% tax after 3.2 million bucks, people just became content with 3.2 million bucks, number one.

Number two, you had plenty of money to pay the middle class good living wages to do the work that was actually creating that wealth. And number three, we did not have bubbles, we did not have crashes, and we had an economy that will like the little engine that could -- just nice and steady and strong -- just moved right along for almost 40 years until Ronald Reagan came along with his wrecking ball.

[Larry Beinhart]: Right. Yes, that's a very good summary. Actually, there's also a direct correlation between large tax cuts and a sequence of boom, bubble, and crash. We've had, basically three times we've had large tax cuts, once in the early 1920s coming out of World War I. We had a tax rate of around 70% and then they took it down to in the 20s.

[Larry Beinhart]: And that launched the boom of the 20s and the crash of 29. And then we had the Reagan tax cut which brings us to the crash of 87. And the crashes are fairly similar in that they include lots of bank failures. The difference in the 87 one is that we had a bailout. A huge bailout. And then of course we have this crash with the Bush tax cuts.

[Larry Beinhart]: It's the exact same sequence. And I don't understand why nobody else is making a correlation.

[Thom Hartmann]: Would it be reasonable to guess or to assume or even to assert, Larry Beinhart, that the reason why, when you have tax cuts on the very rich you have bubble, boom, bust economies, is that there is a certain reasonable limit at which people can ingest? You know, it's like trying to drink out of a fire hose. I mean, there's a limit at how fast you can drink, how much water you can put into your body, that there's a limit to how much cash somebody can take and appropriately set aside for investment and so what happens is when you have these huge tax cuts so that the rich get very, very rich, very, very fast, they're looking for a fast rate of return and they start stashing that money in everything from commodities to stocks and bonds and all of that inflates the market for those things which creates the bubble.

[Larry Beinhart]: Yeah. I mean, that's a fair description of it. It's excess liquidity and also part of what happens when you have a low tax rate is an incentive to try to turn money around as fast as possible.

[Thom Hartmann]: How was that associated with a low tax rate?

[Larry Beinhart]: Well, if you're being taxed on profits, right, which essentially a high tax rate is, you're taxed on how much money you're earning, I mean, you're taking out. Okay. So if that tax rate is low, then the quicker you can make your profit and then reinvest it, make another quick profit again, the more money you make.

[Thom Hartmann]: Right. So a low tax rate encourages churn.

[Larry Beinhart]: If at the moment that you take it out suddenly somewhere between 50 and 90% of it disappears...

[Thom Hartmann]: To taxes.

[Larry Beinhart]: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me think twice before I take this money out.

[Thom Hartmann]: Right.

[Larry Beinhart]: Okay. Let's see if by keeping the money in here we can build a bigger company.

[Thom Hartmann]: Right.

[Larry Beinhart]: So on paper and in terms of your overall wealth you are in fact growing wealthier but you don't have the cash. So there's a disincentive to take it out. Then what happens is if there's an incentive to take it out and to turn it over quickly, you're looking for quick turnaround things. And then you go into places where you're gambling.

[Thom Hartmann]: Yeah.

[Larry Beinhart]: It used to be common wisdom that the stock market was Las Vegas built large and then we began to convince ourselves that wasn't the case. That putting your money in the stock market was, according to George Bush, more secure than Social Security.

[Thom Hartmann]: Right.

[Larry Beinhart]: And it's not true. You're gambling and suddenly when a lot of money comes to the table

[Thom Hartmann]: The stakes go up.

[Larry Beinhart]: And you're not investing in a bigger piece of property, you're not investing in more production, in more productive capacity, in new industries -- you're betting, you're investing in people investing.

[Thom Hartmann]: Right. When the value of GM stock goes up, that doesn't mean that GM gets any more money. It means that the last guy who owned the stock got more money.

[Larry Beinhart]: That's right.

[Thom Hartmann]: Or you get more money, or whatever.

Larry, you've done this brilliantly with looking over the last hundred years at personal income -- or back to 1913 -- at personal income tax rates. Warren Buffett in his annual report for Berkshire Hathaway, two years ago, I believe it was, maybe three years ago, noted, and I'm quoting now from Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report, "Corporate Taxes are at their lowest level since 1934: 7.4% of all federal tax receipts down from 32% in 1952." In other words, currently 7% of revenue going to the federal government is from corporate taxes. In 1952 it was it was a third, it was 32%. Have you done the research to determine whether there is a identical correlation for corporate tax rates?

[Larry Beinhart]: No. I haven't and I haven't done it for capital gains, all of which I think go into the mix.

[Thom Hartmann]: Yeah, and I'm guessing they're all going to work out the same way.

[Larry Beinhart]: Right. You know, I'm not an economist. I was just listening to all of our politicians saying, "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts." In fact I heard it again today. And Tom Herbert's column in the New York Times started out with, "You don't want to have tax cuts that are going to slow down--you don't want business tax hikes that are going to slow down the recovery."

[Thom Hartmann]: Right. Which is so wrong.

[Larry Beinhart]: OK, which is, exactly, I mean, you know, and this is a big forum and Tom Herbert's generally a really good liberal guy.

[Thom Hartmann]: Yeah, Bob Herbert. Yeah.

[Larry Beinhart]: Yeah. Right. Sorry.

[Thom Hartmann]: Yeah. You're absolutely right. I mean this meme, this thought virus, which, as I said, was relatively unknown before the 1980s. As a consequence of these giant think tanks, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and all of these libertarians and Republicans and, you know, four generations, or two generations, four decades now of the very rich basically buying public opinion have come to be believed to be conventional, you know, to be true, that if you cut taxes you stimulate the economy and, in fact, it's the opposite.[ex/]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by j2000
You guys are sooooo wrong. These tax shelter compaines only take the profits from you. You just don't get it. Try to buy stock in an offshore company.



Are you talking about hedge funds or front companies?



The profit you see in the 401k's and such is just what stays in the main company. These offshore one's, most of the stock is owned by the rich elite, not the main company. What, did you really think that these profits where for all to enjoy? hahahaha

That's why this practice needs to stop. The take the profits offshore, leave the main company in a wreck, we bail that main company out, while they are still pulling profits to the offshore companies.


Privatise profit and nationalise debt, right? In all honesty though this financial crisis goes way deeper and mistakes were made at various levels. I refuse to accept that somehow it was all ONE GIANT SETUP!

Just seems a little too "sci-fi"...



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The USA has neither a capitalist nor a free market system. The system is rigged from the bottom to the top. Most do not notice this feature of the system because of the effective conditioning they've experienced from birth. It is, as I said, like the air you breathe. All we have is an illusion of these things and most do not notice the difference in large part becasue they do not have the time or energy after their daily struggle and no-one in the MSM has the motivation or courage to widely spread awareness of the systemic problems we have in this country and in the absence of broad awareness there will be no real change despite all the sound bites to the contrary.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by dubiousone]

[edit on 1/17/2009 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by j2000


Privatise profit and nationalise debt, right? In all honesty though this financial crisis goes way deeper and mistakes were made at various levels. I refuse to accept that somehow it was all ONE GIANT SETUP!

Just seems a little too "sci-fi"...


I was not going there.......I was just speaking of the front companies and how big buisness gets the profit out to a few.
There is allot of blame to go around with this mess. I know I did not buy a house that I could not afford and think I was going to make big profits in a year or two on it. Anyone who signs a variable note is just plain stupid, or really knows what they are doing. I have done smaller one's, but I had the payoff cash to back it up on short notice.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Offshore 'Tax Havens' of The U.S. Corporate Elite


rawstory.com

Tax money for tax cheats.

It's hard to otherwise describe the continuing federal bailouts that major US companies are enjoying in this woeful era of fiscal disaster, especially when--as a scandalous new report reveals--many of the key players aren't paying taxes.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress' investigative watchdog, has found that "a majority of America's largest publicly traded companies and the U.S. government's largest federal contractors use multiple subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to conduct business and avoid paying U.S. taxes," writes Carol D. Leonnig for The Washington Post.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Why not just point out the obvious why don't they. Of course they are. Swiss Bank Accounts, Caman Island Dummy Business Accounts, offshore Corporations by Americans to do business in America, forged seals and certifications, false reports and accounting sheets, transferring assets to friends and family through illegitimately legitimate businesses and funds, etc. Don't we all know this already? I think the Mafia gives free classes at nights and on weekends about how to cheat the System legally.

What do they propose to do about it? It's interesting how they'll investigate one of their own, arrogantly brag about what they've found, then turn to one of their own for solutions. How can you write, enforce, or judge laws governing fraud, raqueteering, and all around hijacking of people's hard earned money, when these investigators and policy makers are the same one's enjoying the fruits of their crimes. And just because they don't directly benefit, we know how their mom's got those new mansions and their wives came to possess those diamond necklaces. We need an ammendment making political gifts illegal- especially, foreign ones.
Of course they don't pay taxes. Why should we? There's no law that says we have to. Why can't those who can't afford taxes be as liberated from them as those who can afford it and not even notice it was gone?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Orwells Ghost
 


It is common knowledge. What I am surprised by most is that people (including me, btw...) don't know how to organize an effective, law abiding, and peaceful rebellion against these crimes against humanity.

Oh wait, let me back up. Forget everything I said. It is impossible anyway because we'd be targeted as dangerous "loose cannon" individuals.

For anyone who has ever held a drill, and has attempted to drill a hole through a dense and thick piece of material. You push and push and push. Your wrist, then arm, then shoulders hurt. Your mind tells you to stop but your motivation tells you to keep going, you're almost through. You hit the wall of exhaustion, yet keep pushing, and finally it gives and you're through.

For the laymen. Us... law abiding civilians, we are barely at the first "push". The worst thing by far anyone can do is give up and stop talking about it. Rebellion is a natural balancing force against things that sway too far in one direction. Anyone and everyone should have a say, influence others, anyone. Find methods to spread their views, whether hidden or public. I know of my way but for sake of privacy and efficiency I can't name it here. Don't cry about what can't be done. Find a way. That is the only thing that is important right now.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I generally avoid this kind of thread because it's often more yelling than inteligent discussion.

Economics are often complex and parameters constantly in flux.

Places like Britain decided in the past to put the thumbscrews on corporations and high earners by taxing their earnings as high as 90%. You know what happened - these people and companies just went somewhere else. Ones you'll remember are Mick Jagger who moved to France and John Lennon who moved to New York - just to avoid excessive tax levels.

I'm not a defender of tax avoidance (tax evasion is when it's illegal) - but in the past governments often make it impossible for companies of any size to make large upfront investments in new companies and show profits. The tax levels became so high it was more advantageous to move elsewhere. When the incentive to start up businesses and employ people is gone, the econony shrinks.

Any government has to work out a balance so that new investment is made stimulating the economy, putting more into the system in the hopes of making a profit in the process.

Often the choice is to permit offshore tax havens. Eliminate this and just watch companies pull out stakes and move on to where it's allowed.

If someone here can offer a solution to this Catch 22 - let's hear it.


Mike F



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Let me comment on this interesting post...


Originally posted by mmiichael
I generally avoid this kind of thread because it's often more yelling than inteligent discussion.


True!


Originally posted by mmiichael
Economics are often complex and parameters constantly in flux.


Indeed, some people think they know more then they actually do.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Places like Britain decided in the past to put the thumbscrews on corporations and high earners by taxing their earnings as high as 90%. You know what happened - these people and companies just went somewhere else. Ones you'll remember are Mick Jagger who moved to France and John Lennon who moved to New York - just to avoid excessive tax levels.


90%??? Come on man.....thats BS!



Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm not a defender of tax avoidance (tax evasion is when it's illegal) - but in the past governments often make it impossible for companies of any size to make large upfront investments in new companies and show profits. The tax levels became so high it was more advantageous to move elsewhere. When the incentive to start up businesses and employ people is gone, the econony shrinks.


Most companies don't move their base of operations. They simply create subsidiary shell companies in second or third world countries to pay less taxes; bahamas, liechenstein(spelling correct?), luxembourg, switzerland, monrovia, cyprus, malta, etc.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Any government has to work out a balance so that new investment is made stimulating the economy, putting more into the system in the hopes of making a profit in the process.

Often the choice is to permit offshore tax havens. Eliminate this and just watch companies pull out stakes and move on to where it's allowed.

If someone here can offer a solution to this Catch 22 - let's hear it.
Mike F


Wrong! Permitting offshore accounts only worstens the problem because the government losses tremendous revenue. A much better solution is to substantially lower the domestic tax rates and thus be competitive with these offshore tax havens. It is better to collect less than to collect nothing. Don't you agree?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


Technically speaking shell companies are not illegal. Front companies, which suggest illegal activity are. In other words all front companies are also shell companies but not all shell companies are front companies.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saf85
Who can blame the big corporations?

If you had the choice between zero, ZERO! Income tax and no such thing as capital gains tax OR Excessive taxes and a rip off 40% odd capital gains tax, what would you choose?

You have no one but yourself to blame as a country, too many greedy folk, asking for too much in return for their crappy governence.

Sure the banking cartel is an underlying issue, they have everyone in their web of debt and enjoy rapeing you all for more and more. But the main reason your economy is going belly up is the average joe, has no balls to stand up for his/her country and rights anymore!

Enjoy your fall into the new dark ages America, the world will not really miss you, but will miss your movies maybe ;P.


frankly , i won't miss their movies ,they have corrupted the world and made it hell

hopefully ,USA will be in civil war and its govt will murder ten of millions in FEMA genocide camps



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Most companies don't move their base of operations. They simply create subsidiary shell companies in second or third world countries to pay less taxes; bahamas, liechenstein(spelling correct?), luxembourg, switzerland, monrovia, cyprus, malta, etc. ...

Permitting offshore accounts only worstens the problem because the government losses tremendous revenue. A much better solution is to substantially lower the domestic tax rates and thus be competitive with these offshore tax havens. It is better to collect less than to collect nothing. Don't you agree?




I agree with what you say completely. My last post was more of a reductionist counter argument for those who don't see that corporate taxation can be double-edged. They're not all making out like bandits.

I live in Canada, and have done business in the US and UK. I've seen big companies and even some industries just pick up and leave when the taxation levels get to the point where it's nearly impossible to show a profit after tax. In Canada many industries end up being subsidized just to keep them here.

Growing businesses internationaly routinely shop around for new places to set up, with the taxation levels being a major consideration.

Governments have to tailor taxes so that they don't become a disincentive to a straightforward operations. Better tax level graduations is one way.


Mike F



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I Have not heard anyone mention anything about a national sales tax instead of the income tax system. It would eliminate the loop holes and would also eliminate a large portion of the IRS who last year increased their budget over 1 billion!
The only downside is that people would start to see all the other hidden taxes that everyone does not always know about.
It the only solution I know of other than a war to eliminate this problem. Fairtax. org is web site promoting this idea.
You get taxed on what you spend.... America is a spending nation, we dont save anymore, and beside people save money only so that they can spend it at a later time!
just my 2 cents.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Well it's true they don't pay taxes nor other corps depends.

Also it is perfectly legal. Just only for business entities.

If you live in america you have to pay property tax and income tax.

I am sure they do pay income tax and property tax.

They just don't pay business tax which is legal if they have the business in a tax heaven offshore place.

So legally speaking they didn't break any law.

However if they have millions to IRS can try and make it sound like they were avoiding their taxes.

I just hope you know you can make your own company offshore and not pay business tax.

Perfectly legal as long you don't mix your personal income with the company income.

Of that company bank account is being used to buy personal stuff or a house it will be illegal to do so.

You have to really look at whats the law. In this case anything business reltated won't be tax if the business is offshore and has activities in the U.S

This is a way to avoid business tax that is all.

If they are putting personal income into offshore banks and other places to not pay taxes meaning make a new account that is for personal use it will be illegal.

Just telling you the legal aspects of this subject.

So just because someone found out they have the business made offshore that isn't enough to say they are getting away with taxes. Cause legally you can do such a thing only for business.

.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Great post, you really nailed the situation on the head. All these people who want to claim that cutting taxes for the rich and the IC's, not requiring these people to pay for what they get out of government, is good for the economy are doing nothing but making up pure nonsense. All historical evidence shows how wrong they are, but yet they keep repeating the same ole tired argument as if they are making sense. Of course, then there are the people who always claim, that is the way things are and will always be so get used to being screwed, once again, they ignore history. The rise of these giant corporations and vast wealth all comes from the industrial era. Mass production has allowed small groups to horde vast chunks of the wealth created by the people.

The real solution is to get rid of income tax. The average person shouldn't pay for federal government, unless they are conducting business across state and federal lines, especially if they served in the military. Most people pay for what they get from the government through fees paid on things like gas tax, and of course let's not forget sin taxes.

Businesses who conduct interstate and international business should be who pays for the federal government, as the fed governments job is to regulate interstate and international trade, protect the seas and all that stuff, which all primarily benefits businesses that conduct business across these borders. The answer is to charge sales taxes on everything that crosses interstate and international borders.

There is no reason why U.S. workers should be paying for all of the huge U.S. military presence military. It is the IC's who benefit from this military, and the third world dictators that cater to the IC's, therefore the IC's should pay for this military through taxes. Under current circumstances, U.S. workers are literally subsidizing the exportation of their jobs. Well, let's not forget Medicaid, the illegal immigration subsidy.

What portion of the trillions of dollars in debt that hasn't gone to corporate bailouts has gone to the military, and it should be the IC's, and the filthy rich who profited from these IC's who pay back this debt.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join