US loses $100 billion a year in offshore tax havens

[rdean]

You can't listen to Republicans on this. Most of the base has no education so making 8 dollars an hour is fine.

Republicans feel that if they can stop taxing corporations and don't make them pay rent or clean up, get rid of health care, then the Republican base can complete with 10 year olds making 75 cents a day in Guam. Everybody wins. Suddenly our unemployment rate is 2%.

 

[The Rabbi]

Corporations are taxed because they use public services, and are therefore expected to help pay for them - the same as citizens.
Corporations make use of a work force educated in public schools paid for with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use water, sewer, and power and communications rights-of-way paid for with taxes. They demand the same protection from fire and police departments as everybody else, and enjoy the benefits of national sovereignty and the stability provided by the military and institutions like NATO and the United Nations, the same as all residents of democratic nations.
In fact, corporations are heavier users of taxpayer-provided services and institutions than are average citizens. Taxes pay for our court systems, which are most heavily used by corporations to enforce contracts. Taxes pay for our Treasury Department and other governmental institutions which maintain a stable currency essential to corporate activity. Taxes pay for our regulation of corporate activity, from assuring safety in the workplace to a pure food and drug supply to limiting toxic emissions.
Under George W. Bush, the burden of cleaning up toxic wastes produced by corporate activity has largely shifted from polluter-funded Superfund and other programs to taxpayer-funded cleanups (as he did in Texas as governor there before becoming President).
Because it's well understood that corporations use our tax-funded institutions at least as heavily as do citizens, they've traditionally been taxed at similar rates. For example, the top corporate tax rate in the US was 48% during the Carter administration, down from the a peak of 53% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
Today it stands at 35%, but in May of 2001 Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggested there should be no corporate income tax whatsoever. This was the opening salvo in a very real war to have working people bear all the costs of the commons and governance, while the wealthy corporate elite derive most of its benefits.
A cornerstone of the conservative movement to consolidate power in the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, the campaign to end corporate income taxes altogether - and leave the rest of us to pick up the entire tab for corporate use of our institutions and corporation despoliation of our commons - first picked up steam when Reagan came to power in 1980.
The December 1, 2004 Washington Times article, titled "End Corporate Income Tax," reflects a powerful and growing movement not just in the United States but across the world. So-called "free trade" agreements and supranational institutions like the WTO have given multinational corporations control of the economic lives of nations that were previously democracies. Holland, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Belgium - the list goes on and on.
We are quickly shifting toward a corporate-run state in countries all over the world. It appears "free" and even allows elections, albeit they are only among candidates funded and approved by corporate powers, held on voting machines owned by those corporate powers, and marketed in media owned by those corporate powers.
But this bears little resemblance to the democratic republic envisioned by our nation's Founders.
If our elected representatives - and those of other "free" nations - don't quickly wake up and reverse course, we will soon again be in a feudal world. And it's up to us - We the People - to help them awaken.


Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes

But a corporation is just an organization. It is individuals who benefit (or suffer detriment) from corporations.

See my post above, which you have not addressed.

The government doesn't give me a tax break so I will donate to charity. They give me a tax break IF I donate to charity.

I understand your post above. I just don't buy it. Sure, makes sense that if we eliminate all corporate taxes that it will be good for the consumer, but it will be bad for the country and tax payers who will have to shoulder that burden.

No, Corporations should be paying most of the taxes. Them and the rich people.

You are truly an ill-informed boob of the first order.
The tax break is in fact to encourage charitable donations.
If we eliminate corporate taxes then corporations will lower prices for consumers (it's that competition thing). If taxes on consumers go up by the same amount then the result is at least more efficiency, more hiring, more dividends, etc.
The rich (actually the high income earners) already pay most of the taxes in this country. It is the poor who need to be paying more taxes so they are part of the system. No representation without taxation!

 

[The Rabbi]

You can't listen to Republicans on this. Most of the base has no education so making 8 dollars an hour is fine.

Republicans feel that if they can stop taxing corporations and don't make them pay rent or clean up, get rid of health care, then the Republican base can complete with 10 year olds making 75 cents a day in Guam. Everybody wins. Suddenly our unemployment rate is 2%.

As opposed to Democrats who are fine with union members making $75/hr while the vast majority of workers, especially the poor, black or disadvantaged live on gov't welfare and vote Democratic. Suddenly our unemployment rate is 10%. Oops, it's that already.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which offshore tax havens were created in the past eight years? Surely you don't mean the Caymans or Switzerland or Jersey or Bermuda or Luxembourg or Liechtenstein, etc?

Isn't it funny that the Bush team created these loopholes and tax breaks and their Haloburton moved offshore to the Arab Emerits. So our government defense contractor isn't even an American company any more. If they do wrong, we can't do anything about it. Their money is overseas. Probably funding the terrorism which keeps them in business.

What loopholes and tax breaks did the Bush administration create that caused companies to move offshore?

This one:
Special Report on Stimulus Effects of Reduced Taxes on Repatriation

 

[rdean]

You can't listen to Republicans on this. Most of the base has no education so making 8 dollars an hour is fine.

Republicans feel that if they can stop taxing corporations and don't make them pay rent or clean up, get rid of health care, then the Republican base can complete with 10 year olds making 75 cents a day in Guam. Everybody wins. Suddenly our unemployment rate is 2%.

As opposed to Democrats who are fine with union members making $75/hr while the vast majority of workers, especially the poor, black or disadvantaged live on gov't welfare and vote Democratic. Suddenly our unemployment rate is 10%. Oops, it's that already.

Hey, I'm on your side. Republicans, no education, 8 bucks an hour, no health care. Sounds about right. Isn't that the goal?

I have to laugh when someone complains about a factory worker making too much when a CEO gets two hundred times that amount for moving a company overseas.

 

[Toro]

Isn't it funny that the Bush team created these loopholes and tax breaks and their Haloburton moved offshore to the Arab Emerits. So our government defense contractor isn't even an American company any more. If they do wrong, we can't do anything about it. Their money is overseas. Probably funding the terrorism which keeps them in business.

What loopholes and tax breaks did the Bush administration create that caused companies to move offshore?

This one:
Special Report on Stimulus Effects of Reduced Taxes on Repatriation

Notwithstanding the validity of the paper's conclusion, that is about the dividend-repatriation tax for foreign subsidiaries. It makes no conclusions that companies would domicile outside of the country for this tax. In fact, it is the opposite. It is a tax break for companies already domiciled in the country.

You can blame the Bush administration for a lot of things but tax havens existed long before Bush came to office, and have been used by corporations for decades. The Bush administration probably did more to encourage companies to stay in America by lowering taxes. Higher taxes that Obama wants to implement are more likely to push companies to domicile outside of the US.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can't listen to Republicans on this. Most of the base has no education so making 8 dollars an hour is fine.

Republicans feel that if they can stop taxing corporations and don't make them pay rent or clean up, get rid of health care, then the Republican base can complete with 10 year olds making 75 cents a day in Guam. Everybody wins. Suddenly our unemployment rate is 2%.

As opposed to Democrats who are fine with union members making $75/hr while the vast majority of workers, especially the poor, black or disadvantaged live on gov't welfare and vote Democratic. Suddenly our unemployment rate is 10%. Oops, it's that already.

Hey, I'm on your side. Republicans, no education, 8 bucks an hour, no health care. Sounds about right. Isn't that the goal?

I have to laugh when someone complains about a factory worker making too much when a CEO gets two hundred times that amount for moving a company overseas.

People usually laugh at what they don't understand.

 

[rdean]

As opposed to Democrats who are fine with union members making $75/hr while the vast majority of workers, especially the poor, black or disadvantaged live on gov't welfare and vote Democratic. Suddenly our unemployment rate is 10%. Oops, it's that already.

Hey, I'm on your side. Republicans, no education, 8 bucks an hour, no health care. Sounds about right. Isn't that the goal?

I have to laugh when someone complains about a factory worker making too much when a CEO gets two hundred times that amount for moving a company overseas.

People usually laugh at what they don't understand.

That's why Republicans laugh at everything.

 

[The Rabbi]

What loopholes and tax breaks did the Bush administration create that caused companies to move offshore?

This one:
Special Report on Stimulus Effects of Reduced Taxes on Repatriation

Notwithstanding the validity of the paper's conclusion, that is about the dividend-repatriation tax for foreign subsidiaries. It makes no conclusions that companies would domicile outside of the country for this tax. In fact, it is the opposite. It is a tax break for companies already domiciled in the country.

You can blame the Bush administration for a lot of things but tax havens existed long before Bush came to office, and have been used by corporations for decades. The Bush administration probably did more to encourage companies to stay in America by lowering taxes. Higher taxes that Obama wants to implement are more likely to push companies to domicile outside of the US.

Exactly my point.
There were no loopholes created under Bush for off shore tax havens. The opposite in fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey, I'm on your side. Republicans, no education, 8 bucks an hour, no health care. Sounds about right. Isn't that the goal?

I have to laugh when someone complains about a factory worker making too much when a CEO gets two hundred times that amount for moving a company overseas.

People usually laugh at what they don't understand.

That's why Republicans laugh at everything.

Like this guy:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f7BTFiBgJY]YouTube - Obama had a fun week this week. Obama laughing about the Economy on 60 minutes[/ame]

 

[sealybobo]

What loopholes and tax breaks did the Bush administration create that caused companies to move offshore?

This one:
Special Report on Stimulus Effects of Reduced Taxes on Repatriation

Notwithstanding the validity of the paper's conclusion, that is about the dividend-repatriation tax for foreign subsidiaries. It makes no conclusions that companies would domicile outside of the country for this tax. In fact, it is the opposite. It is a tax break for companies already domiciled in the country.

You can blame the Bush administration for a lot of things but tax havens existed long before Bush came to office, and have been used by corporations for decades. The Bush administration probably did more to encourage companies to stay in America by lowering taxes. Higher taxes that Obama wants to implement are more likely to push companies to domicile outside of the US.

That is the argument I hear from the right, but I disagree. Sure companies will go offshore if allowed. That's why we have tariffs on imports. Instead the GOP made it more attractive to leave. Why? Oh yea, Haloburton moved overseas.

The GOP House Ways and Means got together, I forgot the year, but it was around 2002. They got together to discuss companies going overseas and when the meeting was over, they passed even bigger tax breaks for companies going overseas. Most thought they were going to come up with something to discourage companies from leaving, instead they made it easier.

Same thing they did with bankruptsy. They made it easier for corporations to file bankruptsy, almost as if they knew the economy was going to crash. And it was a great way to bankrupt pensions. My brother, a VP, even admits that all these companies that went bankrupt were very very badly managed. And again, to me it seems on purpose. The exec's all paid themselves huge bonus' while the company was racking up debt. Then they renig on pensions and just start all over again.

So if you look, it sure does seem like they have no problem with taking their companies out of the country. And lets face it, we'll never be as cheap as foreign labor, so no matter what, its going to be cheaper outside the US. BUT, if we value our middle class, then we will protect it.

Lots of things existed before Bush, but he made them worse. Tax breaks existed, but he gave even more tax breaks. Waste and fraud existed, but he wasted even more.

And NAFTA existed, but he made it even worse. In fact, former Bush employees are working for China now. They're showing them where all the new loopholes are. And that's why we were/are being flooded with Chinese tires. More than we should be allowing. Its killing another industry!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Isn't it funny that the Bush team created these loopholes and tax breaks and their Haloburton moved offshore to the Arab Emerits. So our government defense contractor isn't even an American company any more. If they do wrong, we can't do anything about it. Their money is overseas. Probably funding the terrorism which keeps them in business.

What loopholes and tax breaks did the Bush administration create that caused companies to move offshore?

This one:
Special Report on Stimulus Effects of Reduced Taxes on Repatriation

I heard it on NPR the day the GOP House Ways and Means did it, (sometime around 2003) and couldn't find any other news to corroborate the story. So righties blew me off because "NPR is liberal".

Pretty big story for the media to ignore. That's when I started realizing most media isn't liberal.

I wish I had a list of all the laws changed between 2002 and 2006.

But for righties to pretend that the GOP didn't deregulate, undo laws, pass new laws that benefit rich people, etc, in the last 8 years is rediculous.

 

[The Rabbi]

Given that taxes affect the upper 10% of income earners disproportionately so tax cuts will have disproportionate benefits to them. And since those same 10% also have teh greatest affect on GDP growth and productivity they deserve it.
In fact, we ought to invert our tax structure, rewarding achievement and punishing failure.

 

[Care4all]

Given that taxes affect the upper 10% of income earners disproportionately so tax cuts will have disproportionate benefits to them. And since those same 10% also have teh greatest affect on GDP growth and productivity they deserve it.
In fact, we ought to invert our tax structure, rewarding achievement and punishing failure.

HOW do you REALLY KNOW how much taxes affect the very upper income group when you do NOT KNOW how much they socked away in hidden loopholes?

At this point, all bets are off on what the upper income CLAIMS they pay in income tax....BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THEIR INCOME IS TAXED, if they are able to use off shore loopholes to hide taxable income?

 

[dilloduck]

Given that taxes affect the upper 10% of income earners disproportionately so tax cuts will have disproportionate benefits to them. And since those same 10% also have teh greatest affect on GDP growth and productivity they deserve it.
In fact, we ought to invert our tax structure, rewarding achievement and punishing failure.

HOW do you REALLY KNOW how much taxes affect the very upper income group when you do NOT KNOW how much they socked away in hidden loopholes?

At this point, all bets are off on what the upper income CLAIMS they pay in income tax....BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THEIR INCOME IS TAXED, if they are able to use off shore loopholes to hide taxable income?

damn rich people--

 

[Care4all]

But a corporation is just an organization. It is individuals who benefit (or suffer detriment) from corporations.

See my post above, which you have not addressed.

The government doesn't give me a tax break so I will donate to charity. They give me a tax break IF I donate to charity.

I understand your post above. I just don't buy it. Sure, makes sense that if we eliminate all corporate taxes that it will be good for the consumer, but it will be bad for the country and tax payers who will have to shoulder that burden.

No, Corporations should be paying most of the taxes. Them and the rich people.

You are truly an ill-informed boob of the first order.
The tax break is in fact to encourage charitable donations.
If we eliminate corporate taxes then corporations will lower prices for consumers (it's that competition thing). If taxes on consumers go up by the same amount then the result is at least more efficiency, more hiring, more dividends, etc.
The rich (actually the high income earners) already pay most of the taxes in this country. It is the poor who need to be paying more taxes so they are part of the system. No representation without taxation!

Corporations CHOSE to pay their upper management MORE MILLIONS INSTEAD of lowering the prices from their offshore adventures....the money saved by them just got put in to CEO salaries to where they are hundreds of times higher than the average worker's pay for their corporation than they were just a decade or 2 ago....

 

[Care4all]

Given that taxes affect the upper 10% of income earners disproportionately so tax cuts will have disproportionate benefits to them. And since those same 10% also have teh greatest affect on GDP growth and productivity they deserve it.
In fact, we ought to invert our tax structure, rewarding achievement and punishing failure.

HOW do you REALLY KNOW how much taxes affect the very upper income group when you do NOT KNOW how much they socked away in hidden loopholes?

At this point, all bets are off on what the upper income CLAIMS they pay in income tax....BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THEIR INCOME IS TAXED, if they are able to use off shore loopholes to hide taxable income?

damn rich people--

good morning Dillo,

Rich people are very important, i have never said otherwise.

Without richer people with excess money, there would be no monetary charity for those with much less and in need.

We need successful people, to help those that are downtrodden...so God Bless the rich people!

 

[dilloduck]

The government doesn't give me a tax break so I will donate to charity. They give me a tax break IF I donate to charity.

I understand your post above. I just don't buy it. Sure, makes sense that if we eliminate all corporate taxes that it will be good for the consumer, but it will be bad for the country and tax payers who will have to shoulder that burden.

No, Corporations should be paying most of the taxes. Them and the rich people.

You are truly an ill-informed boob of the first order.
The tax break is in fact to encourage charitable donations.
If we eliminate corporate taxes then corporations will lower prices for consumers (it's that competition thing). If taxes on consumers go up by the same amount then the result is at least more efficiency, more hiring, more dividends, etc.
The rich (actually the high income earners) already pay most of the taxes in this country. It is the poor who need to be paying more taxes so they are part of the system. No representation without taxation!

Corporations CHOSE to pay their upper management MORE MILLIONS INSTEAD of lowering the prices from their offshore adventures....the money saved by them just got put in to CEO salaries to where they are hundreds of times higher than the average worker's pay for their corporation than they were just a decade or 2 ago....

That's settles it--When I grow up wanna be a CEO

 

[The Rabbi]

Given that taxes affect the upper 10% of income earners disproportionately so tax cuts will have disproportionate benefits to them. And since those same 10% also have teh greatest affect on GDP growth and productivity they deserve it.
In fact, we ought to invert our tax structure, rewarding achievement and punishing failure.

HOW do you REALLY KNOW how much taxes affect the very upper income group when you do NOT KNOW how much they socked away in hidden loopholes?

At this point, all bets are off on what the upper income CLAIMS they pay in income tax....BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THEIR INCOME IS TAXED, if they are able to use off shore loopholes to hide taxable income?

A winner in the most content free post of the month.
Your first paragraph answers itself: if taxes weren't a big deal there would be no need for off shore arrangements.

 

[Care4all]

Given that taxes affect the upper 10% of income earners disproportionately so tax cuts will have disproportionate benefits to them. And since those same 10% also have teh greatest affect on GDP growth and productivity they deserve it.
In fact, we ought to invert our tax structure, rewarding achievement and punishing failure.

HOW do you REALLY KNOW how much taxes affect the very upper income group when you do NOT KNOW how much they socked away in hidden loopholes?

At this point, all bets are off on what the upper income CLAIMS they pay in income tax....BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THEIR INCOME IS TAXED, if they are able to use off shore loopholes to hide taxable income?

A winner in the most content free post of the month.
Your first paragraph answers itself: if taxes weren't a big deal there would be no need for off shore arrangements.

you truly believe what you just said?

NO TAXES at all is the only solution and THAT SHOULD APPLY TO ALL OF US, not just one group being taxed....and THAT is unrealistic.

Everyone does what they can to pay the least amount of taxes...if we the people had these offshore tax havens available for the middle income people, they would take advantage as well, I suppose....

BUT WE DO NOT.

THUS IT BEING UNJUST.....imo.