- Thread starter
- #101
Edward Baiamonte, you’re pulling my chain? You cannot be as ignorant, illogical, and foolish as your posts pretend you to be.
If that’s so, you’re hopeless. Supposn
How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.
- Thread starter Supposn
- Start date
Edward Baiamonte, you’re pulling my chain? You cannot be as ignorant, illogical, and foolish as your posts pretend you to be.
If that’s so, you’re hopeless. Supposn
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,159
- 1,100
Supposin: Most people that are aware of the German political party’s actual name, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka Nationalsozialist Party, aka Nazi Party, consider that name to be ironic.
Edward: if you have evidence I of the above I will pay you $10,000. Bet??
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #103
There is no, "destination" based on anything. There should be simply, only a tax preference for US labor for US firms, regardless of expatriation.
- Thread starter
- #104
These links are the consequence of some casual googling.
I’d be delighted if Edward Baiamonte could manage to send $20 to the American Red Cross for disaster relief purposes. If he would do that, it would be more than I expect of him; he’s hopeless.
Respectfully, Supposn
/////////////////////////////////////
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...-dynasty-breaks-silence-over-Nazi-past.html11
Nazis helped Bosch, Mercedes, Deutsche Bank and VW get rich using slaves | Daily Mail Online
10 Popular Companies that Profited in Nazi Concentration Camps – TIP
Books of The Times; Daimler-Benz and Its Nazi History
Current Major Companies that Helped the Nazi War Effort
Refer to the Wikipedia articles article for individual citations.
Flick Trial - Wikipedia
IG Farben Trial - Wikipedia
Category:Companies involved in the Holocaust - Wikipedia
Excepted from:
IG Farben - Wikipedia :
Of the 24 directors of IG Farben indicted in the so-called IG Farben Trial (1947–1948) before a U.S. military tribunal at the subsequent Nuremberg Trials, 13 were sentenced to prison terms between one and eight years, but most were quickly released and several became senior industry executives in the post-war companies that split off from IG Farben and other companies.
Some of the people who served prison sentences but later became leaders in post war-companies include:
Hermann Schmitz, who became a member of the supervisory board for the Deutsche Bank in Berlin and honorary chairman of the supervisory board of Rheinische Stahlwerke AG [21]
Georg von Schnitzler, serving as president of the Deutsch-Ibero-Amerikanische Gesellschaft [22]
Fritz ter Meer, becoming chairman of the supervisory board of Bayer AG and a supervisory board member of several firms [23]
Otto Ambros, holding seats on supervisory boards Chemie GrĂĽnenthal (being active during the Contergan scandal), FeldmĂĽhle, and Telefunken, and working as an economic consultant in Mannheim [24]
Heinrich BĂĽtefisch, becoming a member of the supervisory boards for Deutsche Gasolin AG, FeldmĂĽhle, and Papier- und Zellstoffwerke AG, and consulting with Ruhrchemie AG Oberhausen and subsequently joining its supervisory board.[25]
Max Ilgner, becoming the chairman of the executive board of a chemistry firm in Zug [26]
Heinrich Oster, becoming a member of the supervisory board of Gelsenberg AG.[27]
- Thread starter
- #105
DanielPalos, some House Republicans led by Paul Ryan are proposing our corporate income tax regulations should no longer grant tax deductions due to expenditures to purchase or have produced goods or service products beyond our borders or to import such products into the USA.
But although the importing enterprises cannot write off the costs of their imports as a reduction of their taxable incomes, their entire revenues from sales, trades, or uses, or otherwise benefitting from those imports in the USA are taxable incomes.
The problem as I see it is, how can the IRS determine if any portion of an enterprises’ expenditures went directly or indirectly beyond our borders, and what portion of intermingled expenses might have been to pay for foreign goods or services?
What you’re advocating is EXACTLY what Paul Ryan’s advocating; THAT’s “destination based (income) tax”.
It makes no sense to disallow payments for foreign labor unless you disallow tax write-offs for ALL imported goods and services. (Even if a foreign representative is performing customer service tasks on behalf of the USA enterprise, and never themselves enter the USA, that’s in effect an imported service product).
Respectfully, Supposn
- Thread starter
- #106
DanielPalos, you refer to expatriated enterprises as if that’s consequential to this discussion; it is not of significance.
An expatriated enterprise is not a USA enterprise. They’re a separate entity headquarted beyond USA borders and not subject to federal jurisdiction.
I suppose it’s conceivable to do business in the USA and not be a USA enterprise, but there are difficulties to doing so.
Foreign enterprises doing business in the USA generally operate through an associated USA enterprise or they establish their own USA subsidiary enterprise. That’s the enterprise that’s under federal jurisdiction.
To the extent that any entity operates or earns income in the USA, regardless of nationality, their opertions, incomes or revenues may, and generally are subject to federal jurisdiction.
Respectfully, Supposn
An expatriated enterprise is not a USA enterprise. They’re a separate entity headquarted beyond USA borders and not subject to federal jurisdiction.
I suppose it’s conceivable to do business in the USA and not be a USA enterprise, but there are difficulties to doing so.
Foreign enterprises doing business in the USA generally operate through an associated USA enterprise or they establish their own USA subsidiary enterprise. That’s the enterprise that’s under federal jurisdiction.
To the extent that any entity operates or earns income in the USA, regardless of nationality, their opertions, incomes or revenues may, and generally are subject to federal jurisdiction.
Respectfully, Supposn
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #107
Not sure why you believe that. Only US labor should qualify US employers for a US tax break on US labor costs.
Indeependent
Diamond Member
- Nov 19, 2013
- 73,633
- 28,511
- 2,250
You haven't ignored that retard yet?
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,159
- 1,100
If you have any idea what your point is with that ridiculously long rant would you please share it with us?
- Thread starter
- #110
Transcribed from 12:13 PM, 12May2017 post:
Daniel Palos, you’re advocating exactly what some of the Republican leadership are advocating, (i.e. “destination based” taxation).
I FULLY AGREE WITH YOUR GOAL. I doubt if the method that Paul Ryan and some Republicans are proposing is feasibly enforceable.
I question if there’s any method to accomplish “destination based taxation” that is feasibly enforceable and does not further stretch IRS’s efforts to respect liberty and privacy of individuals and their enterprises?
It's really is that simple. You’re disregarding the question of enforceability.
Respectfully, Supposn
anotherlife
Gold Member
Great. Now we are sending people to prison for making the most profitable business decisions of the time of their work. Disgraceful. By the way, the U.K. has laws proposed at this time for sending executives to prison if they lose too much of their corporate value. Great. The Nazis are now replaced by entente communists doing the same or worse, globally. Hehehe.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #112
Why do you believe it would be difficult to enforce via the IRS, just like any other micromanagement of the tax codes?
- Thread starter
- #113
I prefer to believe your you your post was due to your disregarding the few general links I posted or their furthermore specific links; (I prefer believing your ignorance is due to laziness rather than to inhumanity or lack of intelligence.
Respectfully, Supposn
for example:
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007076
The men had been indicted on March 18, with the indictment listing five counts. All the defendants were charged with committing war crimes and crimes against humanity through the use of slave labor, the deportation for labor of civilians of German-occupied territories, and the use of POWs for war operations. Moreover, all the defendants except Terberger were charged with committing war crimes and crimes against humanity through participating in the plunder of public and private property, spoliation, and offenses against property which came under German occupation. Flick, Steinbrinck, and Kaletsch were charged with committing crimes against humanity through their participation in the persecution of people because of their race, religion, or politics, specifically their participation of the "Aryanization" of Jewish properties. Furthermore, Flick and Steinbrinck were charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity through their participation in the murder, torture, and atrocities committed by the Nazi Party, and specifically the SS; and Steinbrinck was charged with being a member of the SS, which was declared a criminal organization by the International Military Tribunal.
- Thread starter
- #114
Why do you believe it would be difficult to enforce via the IRS, just like any other micromanagement of the tax codes?[/QUOTE]
DanielPalos, refer to 11:14 PM, 11May2017 post.
Respectfully, Supposn
anotherlife
Gold Member
The international military tribunal, as well as the UN Security Council, is an exclusive club of the highest fire power criminals of the winning side of ww2. Ironic that those people run war crime tribunals. In the same time as those criminals were indicting, charging, and sentencing Nazi criminals, they redrew the map of Europe and killed and deported and enslaved the people there, right after their victory. Hehehe.
- Thread starter
- #116
AnotherLife, you’re equating the direct benefits derived by individuals from their own and the corporations’ they controlled directly participation with Nazi Party’s crimes of mass murders, tortures, and atrocities, with what you and others contend was the crimes due to the allies redrawing the map of Europe after World War Two?
Are you accusing some individuals of all allied nations’ to having been direct participants and beneficiaries of such crimes?
No nation experienced greater than the USSR nations’ aggregate suffering due directly to the Nazis; the individual atrocities Nazis committed upon Russians were no less atrocious than what the Nazis inflicted upon peoples of any other nation.
I do not contend that this justifies what was done after the war, but it certainly explains a great deal of it.
Respectfully, Supposn
anotherlife
Gold Member
If we are looking for explanations, then we can find explanations for hitler too. I think it is more interesting to look at the prosecution itself. The victorious entente invented, that as long as you are a public servant, you have the license to commit the same crimes as the Nazis did. Therein lies those individuals that you are asking about. Is it logical to accept one criminal to prosecute another by a public servant title?
- Thread starter
- #118
AnotherLife, I asked if you’re accusing ALL allied nations’ to having been direct participants and beneficiaries of such crimes as the Nazis and their accomplices were tried for?
Are you contending all the “prosecuting” nations were entirely guilty of crimes that were of similar degrees and extents consequentially detrimental to the world?
What precisely are you contending?
Respectfully, Supposn
- Thread starter
- #119
AnotherLife, within USA jurisdictions, and I suppose also within the jurisdictions of other nations, plea bargaining is often transacted within their systems of justice.
Respectfully, Supposn
anotherlife
Gold Member
The answer is a yes. Logically. The same crimes, only one year later. For example, the Nazis deported Jews in 1945. One year later, the entente countries deported the German, the Italian, the Hungarian, and so on. Same crime, almost the same place, one year later. The first one is prosecuted, the second one is excused. So the prosecutions and the criminal nature of the prosecutions themselves are of judicial interest, historically as well as for current practice, because they keep providing an ongoing license to restart European deportations any time as long as it is organized by the ww2 entente nations, currently.
