If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   New study shows that the rich are hiding between $21-32 trillion in offshore tax havens around the world. A sum greater than the entire US economy and enough to bail out all of the EU and put Africa on its feet   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 306
    More: Asinine, tax havens  
•       •       •

3864 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2012 at 2:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-22 01:33:24 PM
pdee 2012-07-22 11:39:18 AM

Drop those taxes and that money will come back to the US

c1redgreenandblueorg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

We've been trying that at home for what, 30 years?

Why hasn't it worked by now, genius?

And you expect it to work on bringing overseas money back here?

carolbean.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-22 01:34:01 PM

El Pachuco: jodaveki: randomjsa: The problem is that too much money is being spent on unsustainable things.

What exactly are these unsustainable things that should be defunded?

One of the most frequently cited is Social Security, which is ironic because it's self-funded and even ran a surplus until very recently.

Never cited is the military, which has never raised a single dollar to cover its costs.


Suddenly, NAF funds don't exist!

/kidding, kinda
//agree with your point
 
2012-07-22 01:35:19 PM

dstrick44: New Farkin User Name
2012-07-22 03:01:23 AM
fusillade762: Pretty soon it's going to be nothing but the super-rich and the poverty stricken with nothing in between. Wonder what will happen then?

If history teaches us anything at all, then THIS:

[img.ehowcdn.com image 400x280]

[jeffreyhill.typepad.com image 597x307]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 720x540]

[frontline-org-za.win03.glodns.net image 300x323]

[www.seattlecatholic.com image 300x200]

And Finally, THIS:
[static.ddmcdn.com image 200x300]


An American version of this
static.ddmcdn.com
Scares the absolute shiat out of the rest of the world, especially the Russians and the Chinese. Our own system keeps the U.S in check more than anything else, despite what every college student believes when he screams American Imperialism. If America decided to go full blown Brittish style imperialism.....the world would duck and cover, and start praying. You think you have seen it? You haven't seen shiat. You get the %51 angry and hell bent on long term nation taking, look the fark out.

On the plus side the recession would be gone almost overnight.

/before you say it, sure maybe, Iraq and Afghanistan were nation taking, but really holding them would involve removing the current citizens. Almost all of them. and we haven't even killed a percentage.
 
2012-07-22 02:03:02 PM
OFF WITH THEIR farkING HEADS.
 
2012-07-22 02:36:05 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: batcookie: Curse of the Goth Kids: ely, but I'm not so sure that's quite what it was driving at.

Nevertheless, I don't find that prospect any more unnerving than the kind of overconcentration of wealth that

Indeed. And in a way taxing IS redistributing - only instead of putting cash in the hands of the people, it goes toward shiat like roads, education, etc... you know, things the people NEED, and which the governments, both state and federal, do not fill their end of the bargain due to "budget reasons". The one place it SHOULDN'T be is hoarded by these stupid mother farkers.

The real problem I think is that wealth is power, and it's a particularly difficult kind of power because it's in the hands of people who aren't elected and who aren't constrained by any sort of written constitution or parliamentary procedure. I'm sure there are certain people on the right who are so far gone as to chastise me for saying this, but it's my firm belief that duly elected sovereign national governments SHOULD be the most powerful entities on the planet. There used to be a time when that wasn't a controversial statement at all.

What happens when individuals -- and here I do mean solitary individuals, and not great masses of generalized people -- tower head and shoulders over sovereign governments? Just look at this guy:



That man was a product of Saudi-style feudalism. Before his family cut him off, he had access to the kind of wealth that allowed him to buy off entire (third world, shiathole) countries. He did not give two farks about your first or second or third amendment rights. Nobody voted for this guy. He wasn't obligated to build infrastructure or educate anybody, he did precisely what he wanted: he murdered a ton of people. And for the first time, if not in history than in a long, long time indeed, the US found itself in the bizarre position of going to war not against some other country but against one super-wealthy Ur-Libertarian and the private terrorist enterprise he was able to put together.

When individuals have both the means and the will to carry out something of that order, there is a goddamn problem.


Newsletter?
 
2012-07-22 02:58:46 PM
Wow, I have such an erect Boehner right now. Is there a GOP M on M dating site?
 
2012-07-22 03:25:57 PM

fusillade762: Pretty soon it's going to be nothing but the super-rich and the poverty stricken with nothing in between. Wonder what will happen then?


Cheap labor?

I could use a masseuse and a cook and a full time driver, if only they didn't cost so much.

India's had this one figured out for thousands of years.

We need more peasants!
 
2012-07-22 03:33:26 PM
And your point is? If they are legally doing it, the government has no right to it.

/dnrtfa
 
2012-07-22 03:39:40 PM
You know...I wonder what would happen if we simply invaded bermuda and the cayman islands because they are executing an extreme form of economic warfare.

Failing that, a rogue power of unknown origin could simply nuke them....
 
2012-07-22 03:57:30 PM

Close2TheEdge: OH PLEASE! Such a worthless statement. Our government spends the majority of it's money on 3 THINGS. Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security and the Military. Everything is barely a drop in the bucket. Are all three of those things irresponsible expenditures by your calculation? Get your head out of your ass. By all means, we should spend money wisely, but it is neigh impossible to do when your revenue streams are being systematically picked away by the rich and powerful.


The issue I have with TFA AND the headline is it assumes that the money belongs to the people, not the "rich."

I'll admit, my original comment was a troll...but the fact of the matter is that you can tax the hell out of the rich and it wouldn't make a difference because rather than cutting spending, governments will end up spending MORE with the windfall. Nobody ever talks about balancing a budget...it's just tax the rich to make up for the budget deficits. This isn't a uniquely American thing...this is a European issue as well. Governments are irresponsible with their spending and we've been negligent in holding them responsible.
 
2012-07-22 04:04:07 PM

Delay: Wow, I have such an erect Boehner right now. Is there a GOP M on M dating site?


Here.
 
2012-07-22 04:38:43 PM

slayer199: Close2TheEdge: OH PLEASE! Such a worthless statement. Our government spends the majority of it's money on 3 THINGS. Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security and the Military. Everything is barely a drop in the bucket. Are all three of those things irresponsible expenditures by your calculation? Get your head out of your ass. By all means, we should spend money wisely, but it is neigh impossible to do when your revenue streams are being systematically picked away by the rich and powerful.

The issue I have with TFA AND the headline is it assumes that the money belongs to the people, not the "rich."

I'll admit, my original comment was a troll...but the fact of the matter is that you can tax the hell out of the rich and it wouldn't make a difference because rather than cutting spending, governments will end up spending MORE with the windfall. Nobody ever talks about balancing a budget...it's just tax the rich to make up for the budget deficits. This isn't a uniquely American thing...this is a European issue as well. Governments are irresponsible with their spending and we've been negligent in holding them responsible.


It's not just the taxes. That money sitting in foreign banks is doing absolutely nothing for our economy. It looks better on the balance sheet there instead of it being used to upgrade facilities, hiring people back that were dumped four or five years ago, or paying their people decent wages.

And you can argue that those things don't matter, or they are not the corporations responsibility. But long term this strategy of sitting on that money and not investing it back into their organisations is destined to fail. Not only for the individual organizations, but for the entire country.
 
2012-07-22 04:52:43 PM

starsrift: mark rathburn: When the president comes out and demonizes you because you're rich, when he tells you flat out he's coming after your money because the government deserves it more than you do, and knows how to spend it more wisely, when he has shown from his record that his intent is to take your wealth and redistribute it to his union cronies and campaign contributors, and when he pours massive amounts of wealth down a black hole without any idea of what he is doing, of course people will try to hide their money from him
.

Federal Tax code is set by?
A) The President
B) Congress


C) Lobbyists working for really rich people.

FTFY
 
2012-07-22 04:55:19 PM

Tor_Eckman: slayer199: Close2TheEdge: OH PLEASE! Such a worthless statement. Our government spends the majority of it's money on 3 THINGS. Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security and the Military. Everything is barely a drop in the bucket. Are all three of those things irresponsible expenditures by your calculation? Get your head out of your ass. By all means, we should spend money wisely, but it is neigh impossible to do when your revenue streams are being systematically picked away by the rich and powerful.

The issue I have with TFA AND the headline is it assumes that the money belongs to the people, not the "rich."

I'll admit, my original comment was a troll...but the fact of the matter is that you can tax the hell out of the rich and it wouldn't make a difference because rather than cutting spending, governments will end up spending MORE with the windfall. Nobody ever talks about balancing a budget...it's just tax the rich to make up for the budget deficits. This isn't a uniquely American thing...this is a European issue as well. Governments are irresponsible with their spending and we've been negligent in holding them responsible.

It's not just the taxes. That money sitting in foreign banks is doing absolutely nothing for our economy. It looks better on the balance sheet there instead of it being used to upgrade facilities, hiring people back that were dumped four or five years ago, or paying their people decent wages.

And you can argue that those things don't matter, or they are not the corporations responsibility. But long term this strategy of sitting on that money and not investing it back into their organisations is destined to fail. Not only for the individual organizations, but for the entire country.


But, it's not money that belongs to the "people".

Tor_Eckman: That money sitting in foreign banks is doing absolutely nothing for our economy.


So? That may be true, but that $ doesnt belong to the "economy" or the "people". Create an environment with less uncertainty, and it's likely some of that money will begin to get back to good use. If tax rates go up, then, businesses and people who hold that money will look and see if they can get a return better than the higher (or lower) rates that are in place for the LONG term. Not this year-to-year extention bullshiat.

On a smaller level, sane people dont go and buy a new house or a new car if they dont have a reasonable idea of what their income/expenditure situation is gonna be for more than a year out.

Businesses who want to stay in business do the same.
 
2012-07-22 05:55:04 PM

Death_Poot: Create an environment with less uncertainty, and it's likely some of that money will begin to get back to good use.



False talking point is false. The money wont come back until they get to pay as close to NOTHING on it as possible.

Death_Poot: But, it's not money that belongs to the "people"



Right. It's money "earned" by the "job creators" who worked so hard making it

Death_Poot: If tax rates go up, then, businesses and people who hold that money will look and see if they can get a return better than the higher (or lower) rates that are in place for the LONG term. Not this year-to-year extention bullshiat.


Why are they so worried about a 1-2% increase?

Death_Poot: On a smaller level, sane people dont go and buy a new house or a new car if they dont have a reasonable idea of what their income/expenditure situation is gonna be for more than a year out.


Corporate profits have been consistently higher for years now. What uncertainty?

Death_Poot: Businesses who want to stay in business do the same.


So they're all teetering on the brink of collapse because their taxes might go up a few percentage points? Sounds like a horribly run business in the first place.
 
2012-07-22 05:59:42 PM

Death_Poot: Tor_Eckman: slayer199: Close2TheEdge: OH PLEASE! Such a worthless statement. Our government spends the majority of it's money on 3 THINGS. Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security and the Military. Everything is barely a drop in the bucket. Are all three of those things irresponsible expenditures by your calculation? Get your head out of your ass. By all means, we should spend money wisely, but it is neigh impossible to do when your revenue streams are being systematically picked away by the rich and powerful.

The issue I have with TFA AND the headline is it assumes that the money belongs to the people, not the "rich."

I'll admit, my original comment was a troll...but the fact of the matter is that you can tax the hell out of the rich and it wouldn't make a difference because rather than cutting spending, governments will end up spending MORE with the windfall. Nobody ever talks about balancing a budget...it's just tax the rich to make up for the budget deficits. This isn't a uniquely American thing...this is a European issue as well. Governments are irresponsible with their spending and we've been negligent in holding them responsible.

It's not just the taxes. That money sitting in foreign banks is doing absolutely nothing for our economy. It looks better on the balance sheet there instead of it being used to upgrade facilities, hiring people back that were dumped four or five years ago, or paying their people decent wages.

And you can argue that those things don't matter, or they are not the corporations responsibility. But long term this strategy of sitting on that money and not investing it back into their organisations is destined to fail. Not only for the individual organizations, but for the entire country.

But, it's not money that belongs to the "people". Tor_Eckman: That money sitting in foreign banks is doing absolutely nothing for our economy.

So? That may be true, but that $ doesnt belong to the "economy" or the "people". Create an environmen ...




Just out of curiosity, do you or anyone else here think that the rich should be required to contribute back to the society they have benefited from?

Assuming they actually earned it rather than inherited it, they did not earn it in a vacuum. That is, their success is in part owed to the rest of society. Whatever their occupation is, they depend on public infrastructure and services like military, police, etc, at the very least. They are likely dependent on their workers/subordinates who likely use much more public services and could not do the job w/o them. At the most, all of the above plus they went to public schools, received federal funding for college, food stamps etc.

Granted it is their money, but they are apart of our society. As the ones who have benefited the most they are the ones who stand to loose the most if things go badly. Considering these two factoids, it would seem appropriate that they contribute the most, proportional to their success.
 
2012-07-22 06:13:00 PM

Dog Welder: Okay, so we can't tax all that stuff, but here's something I've never understood.

If you have $10 billion in cash just sitting in bank accounts somewhere, WHY?

I'm pretty sure I could live beyond comfortably and not have to brush elbows with society's riffraff like me with only a measly $1 billion in my bank account. Why not do something...anything...productive and good with that money?

Bill Gates has given away more money than most of us would see in 100 lifetimes. I applaud that.

But too many of these people are so concerned about proving they have a bigger bank account than someone else, it's just sickening.


If it's in a bank (or more realistically in market accounts of one sort or another) it's not "just sitting there." It's not like they have dollar bills stashed in their mattresses. That money gets invested in order to provide a return. The money is being used in the economy. Maybe you think it would be more productive to mail every poor person a check for $100, but maybe that wouldn't be all that productive in the long run.
 
2012-07-22 06:17:03 PM
So what if 32T dollars are in off-shore accounts? If you were to confiscate it to supply the entire American economy for 1 year, bail out the EU, and get Africa on it's feet...It still wouldn't change the fact that governments don't know how to manage money properly, and they would still be in a world of trouble financially.

Overall, it would give a temporary and false sense of security, that it would make the situation worse for everyone. How do you think lottery winners fare after their money runs out?
 
2012-07-22 06:18:31 PM
As we all know, the most patriotic thing a person can do is hide their money in off shore bank accounts to skirt obligations as an American citizen.
 
2012-07-22 06:19:17 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Who's money is it, Obama's?

2012-07-22 03:39:38 AM


404 page not found: Who is money is it, Obama's?

2012-07-22 03:40:42 AM


curious
 
2012-07-22 06:26:41 PM

jigger: It's not like they have dollar bills stashed in their mattresses. That money gets invested in order to provide a return. The money is being used in the economy.



Money in banks is being used in the American economy? You sure about that?


BlueJay206: It still wouldn't change the fact that governments don't know how to manage money properly, and they would still be in a world of trouble financially.


Except the economic troubles these countries have today is because of the bad investments made by the banks in the first place
 
2012-07-22 06:46:34 PM

fark'emfeed'emfish: Noam Chimpsky: Who's money is it, Obama's?2012-07-22 03:39:38 AM


404 page not found: Who is money is it, Obama's?2012-07-22 03:40:42 AM


curious


Not curious (as in, they must be the same person). Looked like 404 was pointing out that Noam Chimpsky does not realize that "Who's" is a contraction of "who is" (think Noam Chimpsky meant to use "whose").



BlueJay206: It still wouldn't change the fact that governments don't know how to manage money properly, and they would still be in a world of trouble financially.


I never understand this argument. Are "governments" some form or type of static organism?
 
2012-07-22 06:48:43 PM
Ah, I see at least one person still wants to biatch about public sector union contracts.
 
2012-07-22 07:04:27 PM

jigger: If it's in a bank (or more realistically in market accounts of one sort or another) it's not "just sitting there." It's not like they have dollar bills stashed in their mattresses. That money gets invested in order to provide a return. The money is being used in the economy.


Technically, no. Most of the money is just being recirculated into capital investments, speculative markets, stocks, bonds and other financial portfolios that guarantee a meaningful return. It mostly exists only on paper, it is purely financial so it depends on nothing concrete or productive, it gets shuffled around from account to account (the CEOs sit on each others Boards), and rarely any of it actually leaves the confines of the 1%. It does not get into general circulation, it does not get used in the economy, and it does not find its way to main street. It's just a swirling money vortex that spirals infinitely upward, out of reach of the general health and well-being of society.

And it's getting larger.
 
2012-07-22 07:12:38 PM

elchip: I find this number hard to believe. That's the wealth of a thousand Bill Gateses, and the vast majority of ultra-rich don't even come close to Gates.

I mean, total global market capitalization is on the order of $50 trillion.


Well, shiat. That's the fist lefty in the thread actually not talking out of his ass.
 
2012-07-22 07:12:50 PM

nickelni: fark'emfeed'emfish: Noam Chimpsky: Who's money is it, Obama's?2012-07-22 03:39:38 AM


404 page not found: Who is money is it, Obama's?2012-07-22 03:40:42 AM


curious

Not curious (as in, they must be the same person). Looked like 404 was pointing out that Noam Chimpsky does not realize that "Who's" is a contraction of "who is" (think Noam Chimpsky meant to use "whose").



BlueJay206: It still wouldn't change the fact that governments don't know how to manage money properly, and they would still be in a world of trouble financially.

I never understand this argument. Are "governments" some form or type of static organism?


They are dynamic organizations where the more they change, the more they stay the same. They keep on finding new ways to fark that chicken.

People always rip on California for its financial troubles. Its a situation where one side wants to limit revenue and cut spending while the other wants to keep/increase spending and revenue.

The best financial solution would be a compromise where revenue is increased and spending is cut.

But the best political solution is a compromise to do the exact opposite.

It reminds me of the national problem except on a smaller scale.
 
2012-07-22 07:14:36 PM

Ishkur: jigger: If it's in a bank (or more realistically in market accounts of one sort or another) it's not "just sitting there." It's not like they have dollar bills stashed in their mattresses. That money gets invested in order to provide a return. The money is being used in the economy.

Technically, no. Most of the money is just being recirculated into capital investments, speculative markets, stocks, bonds and other financial portfolios that guarantee a meaningful return. It mostly exists only on paper, it is purely financial so it depends on nothing concrete or productive, it gets shuffled around from account to account (the CEOs sit on each others Boards), and rarely any of it actually leaves the confines of the 1%. It does not get into general circulation, it does not get used in the economy, and it does not find its way to main street. It's just a swirling money vortex that spirals infinitely upward, out of reach of the general health and well-being of society.

And it's getting larger.


False, in every aspect. This could only be true if the ultra rich needed to borrow from the utlra rich to do nothing.

Idiocy. God damn you people.
 
2012-07-22 07:34:07 PM

notShryke: False, in every aspect. This could only be true if the ultra rich needed to borrow from the utlra rich to do nothing.


I see that your counter-argument is full of well-researched facts, citations, and evidence supporting its assertions. I bow to your superior skills in logic, reason, and factual analysis.
 
2012-07-22 07:50:30 PM

Ishkur: notShryke: False, in every aspect. This could only be true if the ultra rich needed to borrow from the utlra rich to do nothing.

I see that your counter-argument is full of well-researched facts, citations, and evidence supporting its assertions. I bow to your superior skills in logic, reason, and factual analysis.


I can't present such things when dealing with pure nonsense. I may as well rebut the claim unicorns are right-handed.

You've contradicted yourself in your own primary claim, and are completely unaware of it. Completely.

I'll give you a hint, because I will enjoy your fumbling. First, the claim:

Most of the money is just being recirculated into capital investments, speculative markets, stocks, bonds and other financial portfolios that guarantee a meaningful return

And then, the pure fail:

it mostly exists only on paper, it is purely financial so it depends on nothing concrete or productive, it gets shuffled around from account to account (the CEOs sit on each others Boards), and rarely any of it actually leaves the confines of the 1%. It does not get into general circulation, it does not get used in the economy, and it does not find its way to main street.

Herp, derp. You've crushed your own argument. You are a cargo cult or, even worse, labor theory of value advocate, without a clue how venture capital works. Not a clue.
 
2012-07-22 08:01:03 PM

notShryke: I can't present such things when dealing with pure nonsense.


Sure you can. Explain what the money in the banks is being spent on. It should be an easy argument to make if it's so obvious.

notShryke: You've contradicted yourself in your own primary claim


No I haven't. Investing money into money does nothing for the economy.

Truth be told, a roaring stock exchange is not entirely an indicator of overall economic health; it's only an indication of the wealth of its participants, who number comparatively few to the vast majority of Americans who have little to no net worth or savings to speak of.

This is what frequently caused crashes before 1929, and it's what's causing crashes again: Financial speculation, interest upon interest, and specious banking to turn numbers into bigger numbers, based on NOTHING.

notShryke: without a clue how venture capital works


I actually haven't said a single thing about venture capital (because it can be useful and pliable). That's your misinterpretation.

Once again, if you can refute my points, by all means show me the evidence.
 
2012-07-22 08:04:08 PM

notShryke: elchip: I find this number hard to believe. That's the wealth of a thousand Bill Gateses, and the vast majority of ultra-rich don't even come close to Gates.

I mean, total global market capitalization is on the order of $50 trillion.

Well, shiat. That's the fist lefty in the thread actually not talking out of his ass.



I love it when known trolls gone for weeks or months magically reappear again when their side is getting crushed in a topic unfavorable to their interests.

Why do you find it hard to believe that financial instruments such as derivatives can be worth so much money?

Who's talking out of his ass? You are. Forever

notShryke: You've crushed your own argument.



None of those things listed are necessarily productive. They are merely instruments to create more and more wealth ontop of each other. And in the end if taxes are paid on them, it is at a rock bottom 15% rate. Since corporations are seeing record profits yet continue to lower their workforce and investment in America, your claim of these investments being "productive" crushes YOUR own argument.
 
2012-07-22 08:23:33 PM

Ishkur: Investing money into money


Wat.

t's only an indication of the wealth of its participants

First, this is false. Second: who are the participants in the US stock market? This common leftist assertion that it is the "rich" is grossly inaccurate.

I actually haven't said a single thing about venture capital (because it can be useful and pliable). That's your misinterpretation.

Oh really?

recirculated into capital investments,

Care to amend your statement?
 
2012-07-22 08:30:48 PM

intelligent comment below: Why do you find it hard to believe that financial instruments such as derivatives can be worth so much money?


Eh? I am not sure where derivatives came in to play here, but since you've brought them up, why don't you tell me what they are, and perhaps more importantly, who invests in them.


None of those things listed are necessarily productive.


Ugh. I am sure idiocy follows.

hey are merely instruments to create more and more wealth on top of each other.

I was right. Wealth just "creating" more wealth. "Velocity of money" idiocy.

Since corporations are seeing record profits yet continue to lower their workforce and investment in America, your claim of these investments being "productive" crushes YOUR own argument.

I've done nothing of the kind. I am not asserting outsourcing isn't productive. Our current laws encourage it. You can't grasp that.

Seriously. Consider that for a minute. Can you admit, under *any* circumstance, that our laws may actually encourage companies to invest elsewhere? Please do your best to address this. I assume it will be some anti-capitalist screed, but hope springs eternal.
 
2012-07-22 08:31:13 PM
Jump you farkers!
 
2012-07-22 08:35:02 PM

notShryke: Seriously. Consider that for a minute. Can you admit, under *any* circumstance, that our laws may actually encourage companies to invest elsewhere? Please do your best to address this. I assume it will be some anti-capitalist screed, but hope springs eternal.



Laws created by multinational corporations benefit multinational corporations. This is shocking. And anyone who dares question why this must be so is obviously just an anti-capitalist.
 
2012-07-22 08:40:42 PM

intelligent comment below: notShryke: Seriously. Consider that for a minute. Can you admit, under *any* circumstance, that our laws may actually encourage companies to invest elsewhere? Please do your best to address this. I assume it will be some anti-capitalist screed, but hope springs eternal.


Laws created by multinational corporations benefit multinational corporations. This is shocking. And anyone who dares question why this must be so is obviously just an anti-capitalist.


Not to mention that we have been told since Saint Reagan that we must lower taxes on the rich so they can trickle that money they save down to the rest of us. Instead they are socking it away in foreign tax shelters. Yet Republicans continue to double down on this bullshiat.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
2012-07-22 08:41:02 PM

intelligent comment below: Laws created by multinational corporations benefit multinational corporations.


I was right. You can't fathom the possibility. You can't even address the theoretical argument. Save your OWS crap for the barista you can't to fark, mate. I ain't interested.
 
2012-07-22 08:46:26 PM

notShryke: I was right. You can't fathom the possibility. You can't even address the theoretical argument. Save your OWS crap for the barista you can't to fark, mate. I ain't interested.



What in the fark

You just went off the derp end because you knew you couldn't back up your productive claim
 
2012-07-22 09:14:29 PM
Let's get right on reversing this injustice. Right after this next reality tv show.
 
2012-07-22 09:33:32 PM
Well, why don't we annex the Cayman Islands, then? Oh, wait, they are a UK territory.
Hmmm...so is Bermuda. How odd.
 
2012-07-22 09:37:25 PM
Per the link in the article, the $21 trillion to $32 trillion number is based on... a report that taxjustice.net, whoever they are, hasn't released yet.

Per Appendix 1 of the report (PDF linked from the above page) what they've actually found is that about 0.5 trillion in American currency seems to have vanished somewhere over the past thirty or forty years, and there is a $2.2 trillion discrepancy over roughly the same period between IMF statements of imports and of exports. All of this seems from the appendix to be from one guy updating work he did in the late Seventies - so, respect for persistence there, but it makes one wonder to what peer review standards to which taxjustice.net adheres.

(There's also a discussion in that appendix of how much American equity is owned from abroad. While there are tax implications to that, that money can hardly be said to be "siphoned off" and hidden abroad, as the article claims - it's not hidden, we can see it perfectly well.)

Not that $2.7 trillion is small money, of course, but there's no way to tell where the number in all the article headlines came from. The headline number is ten times bigger than the figures I'm seeing as potential "hidden money" in the published appendix of the unpublished report.

While the headline number is huger than the annual economy, and thus newsworthy... I have no idea where it comes from, and I looked. Perhaps I wasn't assiduous enough about it.
 
2012-07-22 09:40:18 PM
I'm not surprised that the right wing trolls can't do anything except project, parrot right wing soundbites, or just go off on people with specious arguments or attacks when they know what they're saying is a crock of lukewarm shiat.

Reality does not play well within the minds of the troll, and they will never react well when a. facts are presented to them and b. they are shown line by line how wrong they are. So don't feel too bad, ICB and Ishkur, notShryke just can't break out of the box he's built for himself and he can't ever admit that he's wrong. Otherwise he might be seen as a heretic.
 
2012-07-22 09:49:57 PM

Stile4aly:

A tax holiday was granted for repatriation of foreign held profits during the Bush years with the promise that once the money was brought back into the US it could be used to create jobs. It turned out to be BS as the companies that participated instead used the funds to repurchase stock, pay dividends, and pay corporate bonuses and then continue to invest overseas..



^THIS^
, a fact most conveniently forgotten by the anti-tax DERPsquad.
And these idiots want to give corporations a second chance to fark this country out of billions of dollars they owe?
/Fool me once...
 
2012-07-22 10:17:39 PM

rewind2846: Stile4aly:

A tax holiday was granted for repatriation of foreign held profits during the Bush years with the promise that once the money was brought back into the US it could be used to create jobs. It turned out to be BS as the companies that participated instead used the funds to repurchase stock, pay dividends, and pay corporate bonuses and then continue to invest overseas..


^THIS^, a fact most conveniently forgotten by the anti-tax DERPsquad.
And these idiots want to give corporations a second chance to fark this country out of billions of dollars they owe?
/Fool me once...


Sounds like what governments do all the time not doing what they promise, I.e. social security ious, tobacco settlement money not going to what it was promised, and in my state, the lottery not going to education as promised. I could go on.

Pot, meet kettle. What color were you again?
 
2012-07-22 11:02:05 PM
Wow, the trolls are really having a bad day on this thread.

If I were a more compassionate individual I might feel sorry for them.

The fact the Mitt Romney is the first American presidential candidate EVAR to utilize Swiss banks and accounts in the Caymans and Bermuda in order to avoid paying taxes in the US will not be *the* factor that sinks Mitt's oval office ambitions this November but it will be *a* factor.

Deservedly so.

Apologists for increased wealth inequity are either paid trolls or historically ignorant.
 
2012-07-22 11:21:30 PM

Death_Poot:
Pot, meet kettle. What color were you again?


And this has what to do with corporations and the wealthy not paying what they owe in taxes?

US: "You can brink your money back, we'll tax it at either a very reduced rate or not at all, so long as you hire people and help expand the economy with it."
Corps: "Uh, ok"
*money comes back, goes right into shareholders/stockholders/executives/overseas investors pockets*
Corps: "I TROLL UUUUU!!!LOLOLOL TROLLOLOLOLL!!!1!!1!!11!"
US: ...

Yeah.

More like fork, meet ladle. Learn your utensils. And vote republican.
 
2012-07-22 11:55:30 PM
I missed the part where the EU and Africa have a claim on my money. Please advise.
 
2012-07-23 12:23:53 AM

intelligent comment below: DrPainMD: Then why did the Progressives give us Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws and drug laws?


You spelled conservative wrong

Nice try though


You really need to take a history class. Those things, and more, were brought to us by the Progressives, who had nothing but disdain for freedom and liberty, and thought that the peons' lives should be dictated to them by the wise, enlightened elite.
 
2012-07-23 12:41:50 AM

DrPainMD: intelligent comment below: DrPainMD: Then why did the Progressives give us Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws and drug laws?


You spelled conservative wrong

Nice try though

You really need to take a history class. Those things, and more, were brought to us by the Progressives, who had nothing but disdain for freedom and liberty, and thought that the peons' lives should be dictated to them by the wise, enlightened elite.



Yes of course, noted progressives like Nixon who started the drug war, Randolph Hearst who pushed through the first anti-Marijuana laws, Carnegie Rockefeller and the Hariman fortunes who funded Eugenics movements, and here's the icing on the cake:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_crow_laws

These conservative, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, segregating black people from the white population.

So remind me again, who really needs to take a history class?

I await your well thought out reply
 
2012-07-23 01:15:01 AM

DrPainMD: You really need to take a history class. Those things, and more, were brought to us by the Progressives, who had nothing but disdain for freedom and liberty, and thought that the peons' lives should be dictated to them by the wise, enlightened elite.


You spelled conservative wrong.

You should really pay more attention after the last guy got it wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report