USA Berates Cayman

Cayman Net News ^ | Friday, July 2, 2004

[Principled]

You know it's cheating same as I do.

No. You're wrong.

If it's cheating, show me statutes.

Of course it's not cheating, so how will you respond?

How about just change it to "well, it may be legal but I don't like it" or something that might be true?

[dennisw]

It's tax cheating and you know what? A lot of people will vote RAT because of their empty promises to end such cheating. When you play a game of pretend that it's not cheating, you drive a lot of good people over to the Democrats.

It's a rip off same as Enron was up to.

[dennisw]

BTW, do you consider someone incorporating as a Sub S to be cheating if they do so to minimize their tax burden?

Nope. That's an honorable way to pay taxes. But Cayman Island HQ for your phony corporate subsidiaries (many are just a post office box) is out and out cheating on taxes.

[Principled]

Simply show me the law indicating it's cheating. OK?

But it isn't against the law, so it isn't cheating. It might piss you off, but so what?

If you being upset that another business entity handling its business well means that you can punish them financially through force of government, then you're in fantasyland.

Of course you could simply just show me statutes indicating that they're breaking the law and I would do a 180 and bow to your greatness. However, my research indicates that these companies are operating legally. No cheating.

Again, if you can show me statutes I'll change up. But if they're doing nothing illegal what gives gov't a reason to interfere???

[Principled]

Bottom line is that if we want companies to stay 100% in the US, there is no law that says they must stay 100% in the US.

Since a company can increase profits by leaving partially, many are doins so (duh).

The options are to make a law preventing their departure or to make the business enviroment friendly to the extent that business wants to operate in the US.

The former is the strategy that has been in place. And it obviously hasn't worked. Making it more ewxpensive to do business in the US means business than can leave will leave.

The latter approach, making the business environment friendly enough to actually attract business, is one main pillar of HR 25, the Fair Tax.

[phil_will1]

'But Cayman Island HQ for your phony corporate subsidiaries (many are just a post office box) is out and out cheating on taxes."

I'll try this one more time.

So why isn't the federal governemnt prosecuting?

[A. Pole]

We also have your side of the aisle, which demands more taxation, and thus more money going to government.

No, I would not increase taxation. I would stop taxing wages and sales altogether and replaced them with the tariffs and tax on wealth. Also I would bring back limits on compound interest and anti-usury laws.

[A. Pole]

You can't charge tariffs on goods/services produced and sold outside the country.

I agree with you.

[Poohbah]

No, I would not increase taxation. I would stop taxing wages and sales altogether and replaced them with the tariffs and tax on wealth.

Ah, yes. People would have to rent all of their property and money from the state.

Also I would bring back limits on compound interest and anti-usury laws.

Kiss consumer credit good-bye...followed by anything resembling prosperity.

[A. Pole]

Also I would bring back limits on compound interest and anti-usury laws.

Kiss consumer credit good-bye...followed by anything resembling prosperity.

You got it. Usurers provide something what resembles prosperity - for a while. Same way as drug dealers provide happiness. Usury should be recriminalized.