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 114
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-22 03:39:28 AM
13 votes:

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:

img822.imageshack.us

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.
2012-07-22 12:00:26 AM
10 votes:
This is my surprised face.
2.bp.blogspot.com

Like I always said, it's a load of bull that we don't have the resources to go around. We just don't like to share because human beings are childish little shiats.
2012-07-22 12:19:33 AM
9 votes:
Money is a finite resource. These cretins have drained the economy into their own private holding tanks.

We're under drought conditions, while they're swimming in it.
2012-07-22 12:07:49 AM
7 votes:
I dont know anything about personal wealth being hidden, but I do know that many companies are doing it. Apple, for example, has billions of dollars in cash just sitting there. Apple refuses to bring the money back home until the tax is lower. Their argument is that they were already taxed once by the country where they sold their goods, so they shouldnt have to pay more.

I am thinking that maybe a sliding scale might be the best way to approach this. Make it something like if you return the money to the states within one month of being handed it, you get taxed at a lower rate. The longer it stays over seas, the higher the tax rate goes.
2012-07-22 06:14:30 AM
6 votes:
Because the quality of life here is still relatively pretty high, rich folks like to live in America. They just don't want to pay for the privilege. So they stay here, and move their money to some third world shiathole where they would never consider living, because there they can grease a corrupt official's palm and stash it tax-free. It will continue until Americans grow a pair, and quit worshipping any asshole who has a few nickels to rub together.
2012-07-22 12:12:49 AM
6 votes:

hubiestubert: ...and people would like to discuss the jobs created by this?

Go ahead. Explain why we need MOAR tax breaks for these folks, please. You have the floor...


These are the super rich. My brother is a small business owner, and like most small business owners he pays all of his taxes, and one of his largest expenses outside of payroll and healthcare is matching payroll taxes for his employees. You have to get into the super rich territory to get the exemptions. I'm all for lowering the tax burden for people who actually pay taxes. I could give less of a shiat about people who don't pay any taxes at all.

The super rich people don't need tax breaks. The problem is that they just ship their money elsewhere to avoid paying taxes on it. If there's a way to keep them from doing that - hey I'm with you all the way. They aren't "job creators" they are "wealth hiders."
2012-07-22 12:22:29 AM
5 votes:
They're hoarders. Hoarding humanity's resources.
2012-07-22 07:01:09 AM
4 votes:

USP .45: jso2897: The people we are talking about wish to stay, and enjoy the privileges of staying - just not to pay for it. Deadbeats.

which is nonsense because they still do pay more than most, especially those that pay nothing.

If I double my income overnight, and it's now twice that of my neighbor, how am I using the privileges of the United States to a higher degree?


I think my gas bill is "too high" - does that relieve me of the obligation of paying it? To me, the only thing that would justify not paying for it would be choosing to live without it. But then, I'm an ethically consistent person who doesn't think the universe revolves around him, personally.
The argument over whether the wealthy are undertaxed, overtaxed, or whatever is an academic one of little interest to me, and i don't argue those points with membres of the "taxation is theft" crowd because I find it boring. If rich people think America taxes them too much, they should leave, or stay and fight for lower tax rates in the political arena - it isn't as if they lack the clout. Cheating on ones taxes and hiding ones money is the unethical, sociopathic response to that situation. That of a deadbeat.
2012-07-22 06:43:47 AM
4 votes:

USP .45: jso2897: All deadbeats have excuses - but at least the poor ones don't concoct lofty, moral-sounding apologias for not paying their bills.

so a laborer that wants to emigrate to find better work in another country is a deadbeat that doesn't want to spend their talents in the home country holding them back.

I thought "no human is illegal" which is it lib?


A laborer who wishes to immigrate actually MOVES to the nation where he intends to make his fortune. If these rich folks just picked up stakes and moved to the places they are hiding their money, I would have nothing to say about it - but that is not what's happening here. The people we are talking about wish to stay, and enjoy the privileges of staying - just not to pay for it. Deadbeats.
2012-07-22 06:24:51 AM
4 votes:

USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.


Translation: "I'm an entitled brat who deserves all the privileges of living in a first world country but if you ask me to pitch in my fair share to sustain it I deserve the right to say go fark yourself take everything and hoard it while giving nothing back."
2012-07-22 06:20:12 AM
4 votes:

USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.



So you want to live under a government, but not actually pay for it? Are you from Greece?
2012-07-22 06:18:14 AM
4 votes:

randomjsa: starsrift: Randomjsa, think a moment. Bailing a country, or group of them, is not "kicking the can down the road". The actual problem with the European countries - and the USA too, to a lesser extent - is that out of every dollar of money spent on anything, so much of it is soaked up by interest on the national debts.

Yes it is, because no amount of taxation is going to fix this problem. The problem is that too much money is being spent on unsustainable things. As nice as it might be to pay everyone a high salary with lavish benefits so they can retire and have a pension that lasts 20-40 more years and still have the lavish benefits.

That's not going to work. Running around going 'If we just taxed more money we could do this!' is kicking the can down the road. You're setting up a system that cannot maintain itself and taxes aren't going to change that.

If we had taxed 100% of the income on everyone in the US making 10 million or more for an entire year, I mean every dime of income they had... That would be 250 billion dollars in added taxes. Not even enough to pay for 1/3 of Obama's stimulus package much less his health care bill. Remind me again what the problem is, too much spending, or not enough taxes?

Eliminate the national debt of a country or group of them, and suddenly that very same amount of income they regularly recieve goes a lot further. The problem with EU, and again, to a lesser extent America, at the moment, is that they can't just be efficient, or "balanced" for tax income/spending, they have to be efficient to a degree of an additional 50% beyond dollar for dollar value. When, as Sen. Rubio recently said, you're not spending 40 cents of every dollar on the interest to the national debt, that's 40 cents of every dollar that can ACTUALLY be spent on things - whether that's social spending or military spending, whatever.

You can eliminate debt by getting rid of the problem creating the debt. You will not get rid of it by taxing more because you c ...


USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.


All deadbeats have excuses - but at least the poor ones don't concoct lofty, moral-sounding apologias for not paying their bills. And that's what rich folks who don't want to pay their taxes are - deadbeats - no different than some welfare bum who won't pay their gas bill.
2012-07-22 03:54:57 AM
4 votes:

cman: Their argument is that they were already taxed once by the country where they sold their goods, so they shouldnt have to pay more.


But they weren't taxed. Take the EU, for example, where the trick is called the Double Irish. Apple sets up two companies, Sales and Rights. Sales sells things, Rights licenses Sales to sell them. Both are Irish (or Dutch) companies, and Rights is only an Irish corporation on paper. It's really in Bermuda or the Caymans.

Sales pays 99% of profit to Rights, writing off the licensing costs on their taxes because they're paid to another company. Rights doesn't pay taxes on licensing income in Ireland, because the checks are deposited in Bermuda.

Bang! No taxes on any profit from any Apple device sold in Europe.

Google paid 2% tax (total) in 2010 using that trick, and nearly every multinational does exactly the same thing.
2012-07-22 03:37:20 AM
4 votes:

cman: I dont know anything about personal wealth being hidden, but I do know that many companies are doing it. Apple, for example, has billions of dollars in cash just sitting there. Apple refuses to bring the money back home until the tax is lower. Their argument is that they were already taxed once by the country where they sold their goods, so they shouldnt have to pay more.

I am thinking that maybe a sliding scale might be the best way to approach this. Make it something like if you return the money to the states within one month of being handed it, you get taxed at a lower rate. The longer it stays over seas, the higher the tax rate goes.


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.

The argument that they've already paid taxes on goods sold is completely bogus. They want a federal tax holiday because of state sales taxes, when said state taxes are paid by the consumers directly.

Your suggestion incents companies to repatriate profits with the threat of future taxes. I think a better solution would be to increase the corporate tax rate by x% for every dollar held offshore over a certain threshold. After a certain point, it simply becomes prohibitive to keep money overseas thus providing a strong disincentive to offshoring profits.
2012-07-22 01:53:23 AM
4 votes:
And remember - suggesting we change the rules to prevent this sort of thing automatically makes you a socialist.
2012-07-22 08:19:23 AM
3 votes:
Just a thought...

The US announces a crackdown and offers amnesty to anyone who brings their money home by x date.
Then the US asks the tax haven countries nicely for the names of Americans hiding their money there.
The alternative if they say no is to get aggressive. Govt destabilization, black ops, computer hacking. Arresting bankers from those countries if they go to the US for any reason. Payoffs to get the names. Whatever it takes to get the info.
Then the US is able to go after the dodgers legally.

/all this for 1 trillion less than it cost to invade Iraq.
2012-07-22 07:51:09 AM
3 votes:

slayer199: Weaver95: And remember - suggesting we change the rules to prevent this sort of thing automatically makes you a socialist.

No, but when governments spend money irresponsibly and then want to raise taxes to pay for the debt, I can't blame people for moving money offshore.


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.
2012-07-22 07:50:44 AM
3 votes:
I'd just like to point out that this 32 trillion is GLOBAL not just US rich folk and corps.
That said they are leaches on society. Due to the relaxed way in which investments are
taxed there is NO incentive for them to start business's (IE create jobs). They just sit on those vast sums
and let them earn interest from banks or governments (through bonds or treasury notes).
Those then dole it out in small amounts, through loans to the plebes, at a higher interest rate.
This slowly over time concentrates more of the publics gross value into their hands. And mostly
they don't have to do anything except sign a few pieces of paper every year or pick up a phone
and tell the bank to shuffle the stuff around.
2012-07-22 07:17:27 AM
3 votes:

USP .45: jso2897: The people we are talking about wish to stay, and enjoy the privileges of staying - just not to pay for it. Deadbeats.

which is nonsense because they still do pay more than most, especially those that pay nothing.

If I double my income overnight, and it's now twice that of my neighbor, how am I using the privileges of the United States to a higher degree?


Very simple, actually. You have more to lose, and therefore are enjoying more benefit from the military, police forces, and fire department. And that's just the protection services.

Let's assume that you doubled your income by opening a business. You therefore get more use out of the courts for contracts, negotiation, and enforcement of such for your business. You get more utility out of the highway system to move your goods, or from the FAA if you ship your goods by air. You also benefit more from the educational system by having employees that are educated enough to do the tasks you require completed, to continue earning your additional profit.

There are further examples, but I've got other things to get accomplished.
2012-07-22 07:14:40 AM
3 votes:

USP .45: jso2897: The people we are talking about wish to stay, and enjoy the privileges of staying - just not to pay for it. Deadbeats.

which is nonsense because they still do pay more than most, especially those that pay nothing.

If I double my income overnight, and it's now twice that of my neighbor, how am I using the privileges of the United States to a higher degree?


They also have more than most especially those that have (next to) nothing.

Do not continue to labor under the delusion that taxes are some kind of usage fee and that it's only "fair" if you get out exactly what you put in. Your hypothetically doubled income puts you in a better position to help pay for the cost of civilization which we all enjoy and a dollar from you wallet hurts you less than a dollar from your neighbors wallet.
2012-07-22 06:46:13 AM
3 votes:

USP .45: We should tax midgets at a higher rate. They consume less food, wear smaller clothes, not need large cars our houses; their dollar effectively goes farther than mine. It would be regressive to not levy more taxes against them.

Tax the midgets.


Okay, I was joking before, but you really do sound tired. Like, even the shiat you're making up is weak. It's Sunday morning, the only reason I'm up is because I forgot to turn off my alarm, there's no reason you should be white knighting the richest of the rich, especially in such a haphazard manner.

intelligent comment below: So you're just here to distract from the problems raised in the article and troll useless soundbites.


It's really interesting. If it's true, about a third of the world's GDP is basically sitting in a tupperware, being sat on by people who don't care to do anything with it besides shuffle it around nameless accounts. I mean, moreso than we previously thought based on our current way of banking and investing.
2012-07-22 06:25:57 AM
3 votes:

Foxxinnia: So what I'm hearing is that every rich person is just like Scrooge McDuck.


Not all of them. Bill Gates donates in a year more than your entire family's been worth for generation. He's only leaving his kids .1% each at most, prolly much less.
2012-07-22 03:35:13 AM
3 votes:

proteus_b: , isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?


Nope.

Institute a 100% worldwide tax on all personal assets over, say, $50 million via some kind of international treaty (still far less confiscatory than one of the French presidential candidates was arguing for in their last election), sieze the assets of everyone who refuses to pay, and use a small percentage of it to put some kind of well-regulated system in place to distribute it to the world's poorest places while making sure the shiathead dictators ruling those countries don't get their hands on any of it.

BONUS: Turn on Fox News the day after and watch Michele Bachmann et. al. go apoplectic about global socialism and UN conspiracies.
2012-07-22 03:25:29 AM
3 votes:

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.
2012-07-22 03:18:09 AM
3 votes:
Don't trickle down my back and tell me you're making it rain.
2012-07-22 03:14:23 AM
3 votes:
I'm starting to think that WWIII won't be a war fought between nations, but between classes. And while the wealthy can afford better weapons, who's going to fight for them? They're pretty heavily outnumbered.
2012-07-22 12:19:52 AM
3 votes:
Don't you dare suggest that tax cuts sunset, as was the stated intent of the guy who signed the farking thing in the first place.

They'll call you a hippie socialist who's jealous of others' success. Be a good boy and trust that the next tax cut extension will work. This time. We promise.

That's the "new" plan for prosperity you're trying to sell America, you FOX-breathing shills. When we're all dried husks, you'll still be rich. Except we'll no longer be supporting you via demand and reasonably ordered society.

Keep farking that chicken.
2012-07-22 12:04:51 AM
3 votes:
...and people would like to discuss the jobs created by this?

Go ahead. Explain why we need MOAR tax breaks for these folks, please. You have the floor...
2012-07-22 05:59:42 PM
2 votes:

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 01:18:58 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-07-22 10:03:22 AM
2 votes:

mark rathburn: AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn:

What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?

Really? So you're saying that things done by progressives in this country have directly attributed to the deaths of AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn:

What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?

Really? So you're saying that things done by progressives in this country have directly attributed to the deaths of millions? I'm sure you have more evidence than your fevered imagination, right? Or are you somehow equating authoritarians around the world as being your evil 'progressives'? I'm sure in your addled mind, you equate authoritarian governments (like the former Soviet Union) as being composed of your imaginary 'progressives', right?

If so, you may want to start actually reading up on governmental theory and how each form of governing is not like the other, no matter what the right wing noise machine tells you.

millions? I'm sure you have more evidence than your fevered imagination, right? Or are you somehow equating authoritarians around the world as being your evil 'progressives'? I'm sure in your addled mind, you equate authoritarian governments (like the former Soviet Union) as being composed of your imaginary 'progressives', right?

If so, you may want to start actually reading up on governmental theory and how each form of governing is not like the other, no matter what the right wing noise machine tells you.

No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century - see China, The Soviet Union ...


Semantic arguments are for children. i could label the people you listed as "reactionary extremists" as casually and accurately as you label them "progressives". What you have laid down here is an emotional, melodramatic screed consisting almost entirely of hyperbole, and there is no rational response to it. You are wasting your own, and other people's time.
2012-07-22 09:29:30 AM
2 votes:
mark rathburn is either an alt of skinnyhead, or they had the same, butterfingered obstetrician.
2012-07-22 09:29:21 AM
2 votes:

mark rathburn:

No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century - see China, The Soviet Union ...


Yeah, see, this is where you need to actually read up on ideologies instead of believing everything Glenn Beck's 'university' tells you. Authoritarian governments (such as the 2 you posted, which are actually authoritarian governments, not true 'communist' countries) are in no way 'progressive'.

But in the end, I'm sure you're just an annoying troll who can spout right wing soundbites just as well as the rest of the troll brigade here.
2012-07-22 07:55:43 AM
2 votes:

proteus_b: while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?


Not even a little bit.

All that money will sit in a account until they die, then be handed off to worthless spoonfed heirs. There should be a hard cap on inheritance.
2012-07-22 06:52:53 AM
2 votes:

Curse of the Goth Kids: 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 ...


I need to think about that for a bit, and consider if there are good arguments against viewing it that sort of way (particularly along the lines of: after he was cut off, he built the terrorist organization largely not through personal wealth but instead through religious zealotry, so maybe that's what led to our strange war against him). But that was an interesting post putting forward a viewpoint I haven't really considered before, so I wanted to thank you and let you know you're favorited for it.
2012-07-22 06:51:22 AM
2 votes:

Tor_Eckman: intelligent comment below: USP .45: I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?


So you're just here to distract from the problems raised in the article and troll useless soundbites.

He seems to be a little out of practice. He is one of the old righty trolls that have popped up here recently after having been pretty much dormant for the last few years.

It's an odd phenomenon.



It's only a handful of people. They just keep switching between their alts every few days or weeks to make it seem like there's more like minded fools out there
2012-07-22 06:42:00 AM
2 votes:

USP .45: I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?



So you're just here to distract from the problems raised in the article and troll useless soundbites.
2012-07-22 05:55:31 AM
2 votes:
All enemies, foreign AND domestic...
2012-07-22 05:54:03 AM
2 votes:
So what I'm hearing is that every rich person is just like Scrooge McDuck.
2012-07-22 05:04:04 AM
2 votes:
Don't the rich understand that If they don't pay their fair share, and this country goes bottom up, that money is useless?

Or will they see the danger an cash out now and leave us to rot?
2012-07-22 05:02:16 AM
2 votes:

slayer199: Weaver95: And remember - suggesting we change the rules to prevent this sort of thing automatically makes you a socialist.

No, but when governments spend money irresponsibly and then want to raise taxes to pay for the debt, I can't blame people for moving money offshore.


What passes for "wasteful spending" is Republican for "anything that's not free money for the wealthy".
2012-07-22 04:52:24 AM
2 votes:

slayer199: No, but when governments spend money irresponsibly and then want to raise taxes to pay for the debt, I can't blame people for moving money offshore.



I think you mean governments have created policies that allow these people to make these trillions of dollars in the first place, then when the bill comes, they all magically disappear from the dinner table.
2012-07-22 04:51:20 AM
2 votes:

randomjsa: Enough to bail out Europe? Kicking the can down the road because you don't want to admit the problem is only going to delay the problem and after you've tried taxing your way out of problems... and it fails... and it WILL fail because logic says it will... What will you do next? Cry some more about how surely if we just taxed more...!


Randomjsa, think a moment. Bailing a country, or group of them, is not "kicking the can down the road". The actual problem with the European countries - and the USA too, to a lesser extent - is that out of every dollar of money spent on anything, so much of it is soaked up by interest on the national debts.

Eliminate the national debt of a country or group of them, and suddenly that very same amount of income they regularly recieve goes a lot further. The problem with EU, and again, to a lesser extent America, at the moment, is that they can't just be efficient, or "balanced" for tax income/spending, they have to be efficient to a degree of an additional 50% beyond dollar for dollar value. When, as Sen. Rubio recently said, you're not spending 40 cents of every dollar on the interest to the national debt, that's 40 cents of every dollar that can ACTUALLY be spent on things - whether that's social spending or military spending, whatever.
2012-07-22 04:39:50 AM
2 votes:
So basically we're going to go with the usual clap trap...

You don't deserve your money because you didn't earn it yourself anyway. It should be taken by wiser, smart, better people than you in the government who clearly know better how to use your money than you do.

Enough to bail out Europe? Kicking the can down the road because you don't want to admit the problem is only going to delay the problem and after you've tried taxing your way out of problems... and it fails... and it WILL fail because logic says it will... What will you do next? Cry some more about how surely if we just taxed more...!

You're also not going to help Africa by pouring money or food aid in to it. If that's all it took to solve the problems there it would be thriving by now and all it does it get worse. I'm not saying they shouldn't be helped, but I am saying that unless you come up with some radically new method of helping them... It's not going to change a thing no matter how much money you spend.

But yes, keep sitting around screaming how it's not your little liberal pet policies that created the problems and find a scape goat in the rich, just blame them because admitting you're wrong is hard.
2012-07-22 03:37:50 AM
2 votes:
Some Friday in August we're gonna see a quiet release of tax returns. Or perhaps over Labor Day Weekend. Try and stay sober to see the fireworks, America
2012-07-22 02:55:35 AM
2 votes:
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?
2012-07-22 01:16:18 AM
2 votes:
So the Invisible Hand is squarely in the Invisible Pocket.
2012-07-22 12:59:45 AM
2 votes:

bojon: No Econ 101 >C students here.


I can only assume you are talking about yourself. It looks like you may not have done too well in English either.
2012-07-22 12:25:48 AM
2 votes:

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Bring back proscription and the officium dictatoris. Six months is all we need.

This is unbelievable.


Well I for one can't think of any time where this idea backfired.
2012-07-22 12:09:49 AM
2 votes:
It's too bad that greed doesn't cause ass cancer.
2012-07-22 12:04:05 AM
2 votes:
Well, I'm sure they worked harder than the rest of us so they deserve that money, right?
2012-07-22 09:33:32 PM
1 votes:
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 05:55:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:52:43 PM
1 votes:

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 04:38:43 PM
1 votes:

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 01:33:24 PM
1 votes:
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 01:29:05 PM
1 votes:

Spare Me: Do a one time "repatriation" tax break and watch most of that money pour back into the United States economy.


1.bp.blogspot.com
Tried that one beginning of the second term, and the economy has been nothing but awesome since. Oh, wait...
2012-07-22 12:53:15 PM
1 votes:
You have to think anyone defending this is either super rich or super stupid.
2012-07-22 12:09:26 PM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: Gotta go to a barbeque


And that's how you chase a troll out of the thread, people.

Simply ask him questions.
2012-07-22 12:06:13 PM
1 votes:

Bloody William: rohar: thamike: mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country

Why not just write, "envy motivates the leftist impulse to confiscate and control?" It's still shallow, redundant, and meaningless, but it leaves you less exhausted.

The words are too big.

I've found that when people ascribe natural impulses (that is, make the case that certain impulses are a natural result of one's self-identification, not that the impulses fall within a general set of being natural) to an identity, they're full of bullshiat and end up sounding like Nazis talking about Jews. Call Godwin on me, but when you say "leftists" or "progressives" or any singular group doesn't simply disagree with you, but is possessing of a fundamental nature that makes them bad, you're dealing with some very bad rhetorical juju.


I'd have to agree and I'm guessing I'm pretty far to the right of you. That's probably why I posted that Chomsky quote. Rhetoric has replaced reason. Well hell, as long as I'm posting quotes, this one seems pertinent to this new troll:

The US system cannot use coercion (well, not at the Soviet level, at any rate, but the way things are going, give it time), so it must rely solely on propaganda, which must be believed. This means it's got to be very subtle and psychologically simple and attractive, rather than blatant and absurd, to be at once unobtrusive and effective. It's no coincidence that the mother of marketing and advertising originates here. If you step out of line, the government does not need to come after you: business, the media, and even the public itself will. They cannot jail, torture, or disappear you (the system is testing the waters, though), but they will try to marginalize you, and make it very difficult to function professionally and socially. And at least insofar as members of the public are concerned, they are enforcers without realizing it. Quite elegant.

--Fabian Pascal
from Lenin, Trotzky and Relief from the Tyranny of Knowledge and Reason
2012-07-22 11:57:07 AM
1 votes:

rohar: thamike: mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country

Why not just write, "envy motivates the leftist impulse to confiscate and control?" It's still shallow, redundant, and meaningless, but it leaves you less exhausted.

The words are too big.


I've found that when people ascribe natural impulses (that is, make the case that certain impulses are a natural result of one's self-identification, not that the impulses fall within a general set of being natural) to an identity, they're full of bullshiat and end up sounding like Nazis talking about Jews. Call Godwin on me, but when you say "leftists" or "progressives" or any singular group doesn't simply disagree with you, but is possessing of a fundamental nature that makes them bad, you're dealing with some very bad rhetorical juju.
2012-07-22 11:53:14 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: Ishkur: You appear to be very wrong and stupid, so allow me to bring you up to speed:

wilfully obtuse bullshiat


Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country


Confiscate and control, sounds like the impulse in the super rich to think they are entitled to tax free gains and everyone who dares question them is just envious
2012-07-22 11:46:06 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: Both the Democrats and the Republicans write the tax code to favor the rich



So why when they have enough votes do Democrats raise the capital gains and top marginal tax rates?

Oops, that goes against your "both sides are bad" Libertarian propaganda
2012-07-22 11:37:41 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century


You appear to be very wrong and stupid, so allow me to bring you up to speed:

"Progressive" was a social movement that came about in the 1890s and peaked in the 1920s with the rise of the leisure class, the flapper chic and the empowerment of women in areas of finance, politics and law. It was a stark social reaction to the "Gilded Age" of post-Civil War America which saw rapid advancements in manufacturing and industrial productivity but at the expense of standard of living, as extreme inequitable distribution of affluence led to three crushing Depressions (and almost a fourth) and two World Wars.

Progressivism essentially refers to the moral and ethical interactions between groups of people and seeks to improve them (ie: progress). Progressive politics marked the beginning of social righteousness, and while not everyone agrees with all of its activist causes (women's suffrage, prohibition, civil rights, labor laws, etc.), I think everyone can agree that it has effectively made life a little more pleasant for the average person.

While the typical reaction is to paint progressivism as a leftist movement and make the correlation to the totalitarian nation-states of the 20th century as leftist movements and hence just as bad, in truth progressivism is mostly apolitical. You must understand that political, economic and social ideologies describe almost completely separate apparatuses of human organization, each containing a wide spectrum of value sets, and that adherence to one does not automatically entail adherence to others.
2012-07-22 11:31:34 AM
1 votes:
And that money is rightfully mine to spend on my bastard children and a retirement for which I don't want to bother saving.

/why do liberals assume that everybody else's wealth is rightfully theirs?
//highways != social welfare
2012-07-22 11:03:25 AM
1 votes:

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


The actual, factual Progressives were a small, unsuccessful political party founded by Teddy Roosevelt.
It was only slightly relevant between 1905 and 1918, and had ceased to exist for all practical purposes by 1930. No one involved with the Progressives did any of the things he stated, of course. Nor were Stalin, Hitler, or Mao Progressives.
It's semantic bullshiat - pick a label for people you don't like (progressive, conservative, atheist, Christian, whatever) and simply attribute evil deeds to people you choose to call that.
The beauty part is that no citation of fact or logical argument can be used against you - since you have couched the argument in subjective terms you have chosen to suit your ends - you cannot be disproven or logically impeached. It's a great way to "win" an argument, when you aren't in a real debate.
2012-07-22 11:02:08 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: Don't believe I mentioned Obama - but since you brought him up, why, since he was elected, have so many corporations decided that the regulatory and tax structure of the United States is too unstable, and since they can't know for sure what new rules and taxes will be coming down the pike, have decided to sit on their cash until someone more business-friendly is in the White House?



Right, because it's not like money stuck offshore has never happened before, it must be thanks to Obama and his policies.

Business friendly? The stock market is at a decade long high, taxes never lower, profits have never been higher. How much more business friendly can you get?
2012-07-22 10:46:29 AM
1 votes:

Lernaeus: You can fleece the rich until they're but a dim memory,



What fleecing? The rich have never been richer

Lernaeus: but in the long run its not going to make any difference at all unless the make-a-wish economics and fantasy accounting practices of modern governments are abolished in favor of reality-based policies.



You mean the policies that allowed them to create this massive wealth in the first place? I don't think they want a change in policies

Lernaeus: Taking all the rich people's money just gets these governments another fix or two, and soon they're right back to needing more; eventually there will be no one left to loot.


Taking their money? No, they have taken everyone elses money

Lernaeus: Who's going to be their scapegoat then?


The same scapegoat you have created now, the poor and evil governments
2012-07-22 10:39:25 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: we tried to live within our means for a change.



Says a guy supporting a group of a few thousand people who control 90% of the worlds wealth
2012-07-22 10:23:28 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: People don't like to see their hard earned dollars taken from them and dumped down a black hole of fraud and cronyism.


And yet, the current system of banking still stands.
2012-07-22 10:22:24 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: People don't like to see their hard earned dollars taken from them and dumped down a black hole of fraud and cronyism.


It may surprise you to learn that many of us do not consider 'the manipulation of numbers to create bigger numbers' to be 'hard-earned dollars' or even 'earned dollars'.
2012-07-22 10:05:13 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: All laws to some extent impinge on individual liberty, true. I am talking about not laws, but ideologies - any political system which contradicts human nature must fail.


Are you familiar with the straw man fallacy?

Also, "human nature" is a pretty funny thing, and more often than not throwing your hands in the air and saying something is natural is only an excuse to allow crap to happen when it can be stopped.

Also, your Boobies made you sound like a troll or a lunatic.
2012-07-22 10:02:35 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're funny. When did they let you out of your rubber room to post to the internet?

Any political ideology which fundamentally contradicts human nature, which is selfish and tribal, is doomed to failure. Hundreds of millions died last century to prove that point, but let's just keep fighting those class wars, shall we?


Did you just bring that from your philosophy class homework? Society has been inventing new forms of government to bring an order to the chaos of the world around for thousands of years, seems like it keeps on going and with few exceptions we are not exactly living in a world dominated by small tribes or familial ties alone. I guess that means human nature is "progressive" and you're a regressive idiot.
2012-07-22 09:58:12 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: AurizenDarkstar: mark rathburn: The progressive mindset at its root is an authoritarian one. It has to be beacuse it goes against human nature (which, horror of horrors, is selfish), and so can only be implemented by force

You're funny. When did they let you out of your rubber room to post to the internet?

Any political ideology which fundamentally contradicts human nature, which is selfish and tribal, is doomed to failure. Hundreds of millions died last century to prove that point, but let's just keep fighting those class wars, shall we?


Right. And if progressivism were anything like what you are saying, I would agree with you. However progressivism =/= authoritarianism, no matter how you want to try and shoehorn it in. Unless you think that the abolition of slavery, the suffrage of women, and a lot of the things that a certain President (Teddy Roosevelt) suggested for our country as being authoritarian.
2012-07-22 09:54:06 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? 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
.

Is there a StopArrestingMe-type theme here, or are you just another "new" idiot troll?

Is there a point you're trying to make, or shall I just assume you're an ass?

Your screed is so full of ridiculous right-wing, Fox News, Glen Beck, Obama Derangement Syndrome talking points that I thought it was most certainly some sort of parody.

It appears I was in error.

What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?


I think the part that folks disagree with is that you might possibly be anything more than a talking point spout.

Folks are going to be burning through Troll accounts this Silly Season...
2012-07-22 09:31:07 AM
1 votes:

AurizenDarkstar: But in the end, I'm sure you're just an annoying troll who can spout right wing soundbites just as well as the rest of the troll brigade here.


I think he's the real thing. Two posts in and he was already a victim.
2012-07-22 09:25:39 AM
1 votes:

AurizenDarkstar: Really? So you're saying that things done by progressives in this country have directly attributed to the deaths of millions? I'm sure you have more evidence than your fevered imagination, right? Or are you somehow equating authoritarians around the world as being your evil 'progressives'? I'm sure in your addled mind, you equate authoritarian governments (like the former Soviet Union) as being composed of your imaginary 'progressives', right?


If "progressives" are the antithesis of "regressives," I'm not sure why the concept of progress is so threatening to some people who have obviously never benefited from regression.
2012-07-22 09:15:15 AM
1 votes:
2012-07-22 09:14:34 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn:

What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?


Really? So you're saying that things done by progressives in this country have directly attributed to the deaths of millions? I'm sure you have more evidence than your fevered imagination, right? Or are you somehow equating authoritarians around the world as being your evil 'progressives'? I'm sure in your addled mind, you equate authoritarian governments (like the former Soviet Union) as being composed of your imaginary 'progressives', right?

If so, you may want to start actually reading up on governmental theory and how each form of governing is not like the other, no matter what the right wing noise machine tells you.
2012-07-22 09:10:10 AM
1 votes:
the figures from Singapore take the wind of the argument that "lowering tax rates would reduce abuse of the tax system"

Singapore's taxes are just 20% at the top bracket for income, 17% for corporates. these rates are not effective, but before deductions.

the cash sitting offshore is $196 billion, or 80% of GDP.

it does help the argument that the super-rich are assholes though.
2012-07-22 08:59:25 AM
1 votes:

Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? 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
.

Is there a StopArrestingMe-type theme here, or are you just another "new" idiot troll?

Is there a point you're trying to make, or shall I just assume you're an ass?

Your screed is so full of ridiculous right-wing, Fox News, Glen Beck, Obama Derangement Syndrome talking points that I thought it was most certainly some sort of parody.

It appears I was in error.


What part do you disagree with - that progressives have killed millions last century? That Obama has rewarded his union cronies with tax money? That a large portion of Farkers write about their violent fantasies against the rich? Or that people don't like to pay taxes?
2012-07-22 08:55:36 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-07-22 08:51:32 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: Tor_Eckman: mark rathburn: This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? 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
.

Is there a StopArrestingMe-type theme here, or are you just another "new" idiot troll?

Is there a point you're trying to make, or shall I just assume you're an ass?


Your screed is so full of ridiculous right-wing, Fox News, Glen Beck, Obama Derangement Syndrome talking points that I thought it was most certainly some sort of parody.

It appears I was in error.
2012-07-22 08:47:22 AM
1 votes:

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
2012-07-22 08:36:59 AM
1 votes:

mark rathburn: This just in - people don't like to pay taxes and will avoid it if possible.
Progressives have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last 200 years trying to change human nature because they just can't accept the fact that some people could possibly have an unfair advantage somehow. From the violent masturbatory fantasies I read on just about every Fark politics thread, there is a large portion of the population so filled with hate and envy that they can't wait for the next revolution to begin so they can slit some throats, hopefully of 'the rich', but it really doesn't matter.
Really, why does this surprise anyone? 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
.


Is there a StopArrestingMe-type theme here, or are you just another "new" idiot troll?
2012-07-22 08:29:29 AM
1 votes:
Wealth is not income, they are two different things.

For one, we don't tax wealth, we tax income. If all that money was held by us citizens (which it wouldn't be, as many of the worlds super rich are foreign oligarchs) and was sitting in the US today the government wouldn't touch a dime of it. What we would tax is the capital gains from those assets. To do otherwise is to punish saving and investment, which would cause the financial system to collapse as it would also prevent banks from lending.

As the article pointed out:

Assuming that super-rich investors earn a relatively modest 3% a year on their $21tn, taxing that vast wall of money at 30% would generate a very useful $189bn a year - more than rich economies spend on aid to the rest of the world.

So we aren't talking about enough in additional income taxes to close the US deficit here. Assuming a third of these assets belong to US citizens, which is in line with the percent of global assets that we have, we are looking an extra $30 billion a year in taxes. Why $30b instead of $60b (a third of the stated $189b)? Because we tax capital gains at 15% not 30%. So we are looking at 2% of the US deficit (not budget, deficit).

Would it be nice to close that 2%? Sure. Are there far easier ways to find $30 billion? You betcha. For example, reforming the way Medicaid is funded would free up far more than that a year, easy, plus it would have significant benefits to the health of our citizens. And military spending is due for a nice haircut.

So this article is really more applicable for other countries than the US. For example, small African countries whose corrupt leadership is siphoning off large chunks of their tax revenue and hiding it abroad. Those assets shouldn't be taxed though, they should be seized and used for their intended purpose.
2012-07-22 07:57:33 AM
1 votes:

cman: Lsherm: cman: I dont know anything about personal wealth being hidden, but I do know that many companies are doing it. Apple, for example, has billions of dollars in cash just sitting there. Apple refuses to bring the money back home until the tax is lower. Their argument is that they were already taxed once by the country where they sold their goods, so they shouldnt have to pay more.

I am thinking that maybe a sliding scale might be the best way to approach this. Make it something like if you return the money to the states within one month of being handed it, you get taxed at a lower rate. The longer it stays over seas, the higher the tax rate goes.

That's...actually not a bad idea, except they can continue to use the money overseas. They would probably consider a rate of zero the line that would get them to bring the money back, and that's bullshiat.

Apple wants to bring the money back. Its just sitting there collecting dust. If they are investing in overseas projects, that is different, because the money is being spent to fuel the global economy. Apple sitting on this shiat hurts


I doubt it's collecting dust. Interest, perhaps, but not dust.
2012-07-22 07:51:17 AM
1 votes:

Foxxinnia: So what I'm hearing is that every rich person is just like Scrooge McDuck.


Haha, of course not. Scrooge McDuck was honest, hard working, and hated cheats.

Plus he didn't hide his money. It was all right there in three cubic acres of gold coins in his Money Bin.
2012-07-22 07:41:50 AM
1 votes:

USP .45: Baryogenesis: USP .45: jso2897: The people we are talking about wish to stay, and enjoy the privileges of staying - just not to pay for it. Deadbeats.

which is nonsense because they still do pay more than most, especially those that pay nothing.

If I double my income overnight, and it's now twice that of my neighbor, how am I using the privileges of the United States to a higher degree?

They also have more than most especially those that have (next to) nothing.

Do not continue to labor under the delusion that taxes are some kind of usage fee and that it's only "fair" if you get out exactly what you put in. Your hypothetically doubled income puts you in a better position to help pay for the cost of civilization which we all enjoy and a dollar from you wallet hurts you less than a dollar from your neighbors wallet.

Of course it does, just don't call it a fair share. Please just say you're in favor of midget taxation, and price discrimination. To be consistent logically, you'd have to be.


Taxes based on income are different than taxes based on genetics. You can't compare discrimination based on income and discrimination toward little people. And that's assuming your absurd hypothetical about their cost of living being cheaper is true. I doubt that it is.

Consumption taxes are different than income taxes. I just thought I'd point those things out for you.
2012-07-22 07:35:19 AM
1 votes:
So this thread is basically just a weirdo ranting about taxing midgets?
2012-07-22 07:02:14 AM
1 votes:

intelligent comment below: Tor_Eckman: intelligent comment below: USP .45: I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?


So you're just here to distract from the problems raised in the article and troll useless soundbites.

He seems to be a little out of practice. He is one of the old righty trolls that have popped up here recently after having been pretty much dormant for the last few years.

It's an odd phenomenon.


It's only a handful of people. They just keep switching between their alts every few days or weeks to make it seem like there's more like minded fools out there


Sock puppet software is what you want to read up on. It's use indicates that you can never get an idea of what the opinion of the masses is by looking at Internet forums. Even before the development of sock puppet software forums didn't express public opinion but the software has really exaggerated the problem.
2012-07-22 06:56:11 AM
1 votes:
Great article, subby. It's nice to get stuff like this once in a while in the politics tab rather than Townhall of Breitbart derp.
2012-07-22 06:55:50 AM
1 votes:
CS Lewis explained why the rich are so corrupt in his essay "The Inner Ring". It's one of the most important things you will ever read. It explains the american decline throughly and why it can't be stopped. It's safe to say that america is built on the principle of corruption expressed the Lewis essay. The inner ring phenomena doesn't just manifest itself among the rich however. They are just the group with the most negative impact ( see the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond ). The country is fatally flawed at it's most basic level
2012-07-22 06:46:19 AM
1 votes:

intelligent comment below: USP .45: I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?


So you're just here to distract from the problems raised in the article and troll useless soundbites.


He seems to be a little out of practice. He is one of the old righty trolls that have popped up here recently after having been pretty much dormant for the last few years.

It's an odd phenomenon.
2012-07-22 06:37:04 AM
1 votes:

USP .45: batcookie: USP .45: If you're not allowed to move yourself, or labor or property out of your own country, then you live under totalitarianism. It couldn't be more clear what political affiliation is against this.

Translation: "I'm an entitled brat who deserves all the privileges of living in a first world country but if you ask me to pitch in my fair share to sustain it I deserve the right to say go fark yourself take everything and hoard it while giving nothing back."

I'll pay what everyone else has to pay. Equal protection under the law, right libs? Right?


You sound really tired.
2012-07-22 05:54:03 AM
1 votes:

Lsherm: The super rich people don't need tax breaks. The problem is that they just ship their money elsewhere to avoid paying taxes on it.


Horseshiat.

We could take the money if we wanted. Right now. The government virtually seized all the US assets of all the major online poker companies literally overnight -- some untold tens of billions -- in a move so fast that their players could not even withdraw the funds in time. Some are STILL waiting for their promised funds from now-defunct accounts.

It's not a hard thing to do to kill a person/company and take their shiat. All that is needed is the political wherewithal. But the only difference is the poker companies didn't have any friends in Washington.

But it can be done. Bring back Proscription!
2012-07-22 05:38:15 AM
1 votes:
Does this mean we can finally put that tired "raising taxes on the rich won't fix the whole problem so we should just keep cutting the top tax rate" argument to bed? Or are we still running with the whole "Because SOCIALUISMSZ!1!!!11" think.

/Never mind, looks like Randomjsa already answered my question in his own derptastic way.
2012-07-22 05:03:37 AM
1 votes:

propasaurus: It'll trickle down. Like any day now.


In blood.

/soon, you will have more trickle down than you can stomach.
//I only wish it was my generation instead of my children who will have to deal with it.
2012-07-22 04:16:22 AM
1 votes:
How about a constitutional amendment for this.

They're waiting for another tax holiday and the government is holding out, and for good reason.

Let's make it constitutionally required to repatriate the money. Just the tax on that fortune along could balance the budget with a bit of a surplus to boot.
2012-07-22 03:57:57 AM
1 votes:

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:

[img822.imageshack.us image 234x349]

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 ...


Couldn't have said it better myself.
2012-07-22 03:33:58 AM
1 votes:

Tor_Eckman: 404 page not found: proteus_b: while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?

Class Warfare™

Right. According to this article, that's over already. We lost.


ABORTION! HOMOSEX! MEXICANS! WAR ON CHRISTMAS! GROUND ZERO MOSQUE! SOCIALISM! DRILL BABBY DRILL! TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY! OBAMACARE! goddamn i sound tired.
2012-07-22 03:23:53 AM
1 votes:
And people wonder why Mitt is hiding his tax returns. I'm convinced part of it is because he doesn't pay that much in taxes due to his offshore tax dodging. Some Republicans may be OK with that but the average supporter who finds out they're paying a higher tax percentage during a recession than a guy worth more than $100M may decide to just sit this election out.
2012-07-22 03:20:56 AM
1 votes:

proteus_b: while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?


I didn't read all of TFA so I can't say so definitively, 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 appears to be indicated here.
2012-07-22 03:04:33 AM
1 votes:

404 page not found: proteus_b: while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?

Class Warfare™


Right. According to this article, that's over already. We lost.
2012-07-22 03:01:23 AM
1 votes:

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?


The black plague?
2012-07-22 03:00:54 AM
1 votes:
And republicans cheered.
2012-07-22 02:55:48 AM
1 votes:

proteus_b: while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?


Class Warfare™
2012-07-22 02:53:09 AM
1 votes:
while of course they should be paying taxes on it like the rest of the 49-99 percentiles, isn't the implication of the headline, that it could ALL be "redistributed" a little bit unnerving?
2012-07-22 01:09:20 AM
1 votes:
I'm sure someone will be along any minute now to tell how this is actually a good thing. And tax cuts.


/jump, you f*ckers
2012-07-22 12:15:32 AM
1 votes:

cman: I dont know anything about personal wealth being hidden, but I do know that many companies are doing it. Apple, for example, has billions of dollars in cash just sitting there. Apple refuses to bring the money back home until the tax is lower. Their argument is that they were already taxed once by the country where they sold their goods, so they shouldnt have to pay more.

I am thinking that maybe a sliding scale might be the best way to approach this. Make it something like if you return the money to the states within one month of being handed it, you get taxed at a lower rate. The longer it stays over seas, the higher the tax rate goes.


That's...actually not a bad idea, except they can continue to use the money overseas. They would probably consider a rate of zero the line that would get them to bring the money back, and that's bullshiat.
2012-07-22 12:14:24 AM
1 votes:

shanrick: It's too bad that greed doesn't cause ass cancer.


If they have a taste for scotch or bourbon it does.
2012-07-22 12:08:20 AM
1 votes:
Whoa whoa whoa, I thought the Chinese were putting the African continent back on its feet.
2012-07-22 12:06:02 AM
1 votes:
It'll trickle down. Like any day now.
2012-07-22 12:02:10 AM
1 votes:
And??? People are money grubbing scumbags. Next...
 
Displayed 114 of 114 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report