Dart Container Owners - Gave Up US Citizenship

Forbes Magazine ^ | 7-21-03 | J.N and William P. Barrett

[doosee]

Back for the umpteenth time in U.S. Tax Court:

Dart Container Corp., the Mason, Mich. Styrofoam cup maker owned by brothers Kenneth B. and Robert C. Dart, who gave up citizenship and live abroad.

This case: The Internal Revenue Service says Dart owes $19 million more in 1998 and 1999 taxes, primarily for wrongly deducting $45 million in "interest" payments, related to division of the family business in 1986 to settle a lawsuit by feuding sibling Thomas J. Dart. Dart Container says it's owed a $10 million refund.

Last year Dart entities paid $26 million in taxes--from 1994. --J.N. and William P. Barrett

[Eagle Eye]

Bla bla bla.

You run yourself in circles on this. You LIKE big Tax and Spend governments when the spending suits your tastes.

Hypocrite.

[decimon]

The real issue is this: It used to be that foreginers and foregin corporations fled to the United States for the better business and Tax climate. Now they are going out. That is the scary part.

Yup! If these guys are traitors then the U.S. owes its prosperity to the traitorous acts of millions of foreign nationals.

[DannyTN]

Hypocrite.

What circles? Really, what have I said that's inconsistent? What I have said is that Government has a responsibility to the poor. I've not said anything about the size of government or taxes. Or even much about how much help to the poor government should have.

Mostly I've disputed those who would completely shirk our responsibility and say we have none.

If I am a hypocrit, then so were the founding fathers. Because the states had Poor Laws. The states recognized a responsibility to the poor.

[DannyTN]

"Crockett Fiction"

Go to this link and look at what the 6th congress was doing.

• Uniform Bankruptcy laws - Certainly the discharge of debt is an act of charity. But Bankruptcy wasn't new, they were just making the various laws more consistent.
• Grants of land for refugees. In fact, giving away public land to the poor seems to have a long history in the US. Remember the Homestead Acts, that helped the US spread accross the continent. That there was ample land to give away no doubt eased the burden of the poor. Nevertheless, it is definitely a form of charity.
• Giving Rations to the Indians on the frontiers from Excess Military supplies

  I couldn't find the first 5 congresses, but I bet they had acts of charity too. Sixth Congress

  In 1811 Madison, in response to a request to incorporate a church as part of the town, first objected because of the religions establishment clause and then because of this....

  "Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church, an authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same; an authority which being altogether superfluous, if the provision is to be the result of pious charity; would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty." JAMES MADISON.

  I could be reading it wrong, but it looks to me like he is calling the support and education of the poor a public and civil duty. That would be consistent with the Poor Laws. HR 319

[DannyTN]

"You run yourself in circles on this. You LIKE big Tax and Spend governments when the spending suits your tastes"

You know the fact is you Libertarians are ineffective because you come off as irresponsible.

If you guys would quit rewriting history and trying to shirk reponsibility, and instead focused your efforts on how to both meet our responsibility with a smaller government, perhaps you would get somewhere.

I don't dispute that there is abuse of transfer payments. Nor do I dispute that government doesn't seem to be effective at either "leading men out of poverty or driving them out" as Ben Franklin counciled we should do.

But you Libertarians are wasting your breath when you say stop all transfer payments. It's neither historical nor moral. And you will not be able to convince the masses.

Work to make the Poor Laws more effective. Implement Workfare instead of Welfare for able bodied people and I'll support it. Get rid of the disincentives to work and I'm with you. But abandon our civil duty to the poor. Not me.

[ovrtaxt]

Man, you trust politicians way too much.

I'm not going to argue anymore point by point. I can see from your conclusions that you basically don't mind the intrusive nature of a strong centralized federal bureaucracy.

Take two readings of the Declaration, a shot of the Constitution, and a daily regimen of the Federalist Papers, and call me in the morning. Have a nice indentured servanthood.

[DannyTN]

"Man, you trust politicians way too much. "

I think it's usually easy to tell the character of the people you are voting for. And I'm constantly amazed that the rest of the populace votes for people with such critical character flaws.

Therefore, it's not that I trust politicians, it's that I blame the voters when the politician is not trustworthy. Think about it. Who didn't know Clinton was a womanizer, a schemer, and a man of little principles who cared more about getting something done, than what was done, before we elected him? (and I use "we" loosely because I didn't vote for him)

The problem with the poor, is that if the people aren't responsible enough to elect politicians who are trustworthy, then the people aren't responsible enough to be trusted to carry out their responsibilities if you remove those responsibilities from government. Do you see the catch-22? The politician might misuse and waste funds, but a populace that would elect that kind of politician would surely let the poor starve.

Since we are all in this together. I do what I think is right. I vote for the men of character. I espouse the responsibilities as I see them. I don't like taxes taken out of my check any more than the next guy, but I want the right thing done.

[dcwusmc]

If you want the "right" thing done, do it yourself and leave the government OUT of it. And leave MY wallet alone. Thief.

[DannyTN]

dcwusmc calls me a thief so lets abandon the poor.
wallflower calls me a murderer so lets disband the military.
Mr. Leroy thinks the WOD doesn't work (you do to) so lets legalize everything.
speedster calls traffic cops oppressive so lets disband law enforcement
The courts keep making screwy decisions so lets disband the judiciuary and let vigilante justice rule.
No need to regulate trade and commerce or antitrust.
No Federal Education which I agree with.
We don't really need trade agreements with other countries to trade so let's disband the State department (there all communists anyway)
The space program hasn't accomplished anything lately, so there goes NASA. Let private enterprise do it, not worth stealing out of my pocket.

If we keep going we will be down to your goal of no taxes. We'll probably need to rename her though, how does New Africa sound?

[dcwusmc]

Why in the name of John Moses Browning are you posting on a CONSERVATIVE site? You out-liberal Tom Dashole...

And, lest you leave here with the idea that, because we do not want GOVERNMENT involved in areas not allowed by the Constitution, that we do not want them done at all, consider that the PRIVATE charity industry rakes in BILLIONS per year and actually HELPS people instead of making them dependent on government handouts.

[Eagle Eye]

But you Libertarians are wasting your breath when you say stop all transfer payments. It's neither historical nor moral.And you will not be able to convince the masses.

A)I am a registered Republican.

B)Forced transfer payments are NOT moral. Jesus didn't tell the governemtn to look out for the poor and widows, in fact he said that the poor would be with us always. Paul said that if one won't work neither should he eat.

C)"The masses" don't need to be convinced. The US has a republican form of government, not a democracy. "The masses" are usually wrong in moral and ethical matters, doing what come easy first. "The masses" are easily deceived and easily led, hence the term "sheeple".

Continue worshipping Big Government and calling tax avoiders traitors. Go ahead. But if you aren't paying more than 100% of your taxes you are a hypocrite.

[DannyTN]

"Why in the name of John Moses Browning are you posting on a CONSERVATIVE site? You out-liberal Tom Dashole... "

I've don't think I've ever voted for a democrat. And I'm not for big government. I just know that you are wrong when you say we have no civil duty to the poor. It certainly isn't the way the Colonial states felt.

• I've shown you that Poor Laws were in existence both prior to and after the founding of the Constitution.
• I've shown you that early Congress did vote for charitable acts proving the founding fathers thought they had that authority.
• I've shown that James Madison considered the support and education of the poor a "civil" duty.
• I've shown the Davy Crockett story that was presented to be false.

  Do you have a problem with me or do you have a problem with American History?

  The problem is that you can't distinquish between legitimate aid to the poor and the failure of government to deal with those that abuse the system. You think because government has made some people dependent on the system (which I agree it has) that makes a case for shirking our civil responsibilities to all. It doesn't. It just means we need to try harder to make sure that the beureacrats have the right incentives to do the right thing.

  The reason I appear liberal on this thread, is that you are at an extreme.

[DannyTN]

"if you aren't paying more than 100% of your taxes you are a hypocrite. "

I pay 100%. Why would I be a hipocrite if I don't pay more? I've never suggested people pay more than the legal requirement. I haven't suggested they apply a different rate structure to anyone else than what they apply to me. I haven't called people who legally reduce their taxes traitors, only those that illegally reduce them.

"The masses" don't need to be convinced. The US has a republican form of government, not a democracy.

The masses elect those representatives. Unless you are advocating dishonest democrat style tactics of saying one thing to the voters and doing something else.

I'm also a registered Republican. Sorry about labling you as a Libertarian label, but I normally expect your stance from them.

Jesus didn't tell the governemtn to look out for the poor and widows

Do not the following verses place some responsibility for the poor on the shoulders of Government?

Dan 4:27 For this cause, O King, let my suggestion be pleasing to you, and let your sins be covered by righteousness and your evil-doing by mercy to the poor, so that the time of your well-being may be longer.

Amo 5:11 So because the poor man is crushed under your feet, and you take taxes from him of grain: you have made for yourselves houses of cut stone, but you will not take your rest in them; the fair vine-gardens planted by your hands will not give you wine.

Jer 22:15 Are you to be a king because you make more use of cedar than your father? did not your father take food and drink and do right, judging in righteousness, and then it was well for him? Jer 22:16 He was judge in the cause of the poor and those in need; then it was well. Was not this to have knowledge of me? says the Lord. Jer 22:17 But your eyes and your heart are fixed only on profit for yourself, on causing the death of him who has done no wrong, and on violent and cruel acts.

Paul said that if one won't work neither should he eat.

Paul did say that and I agree with it. Paul was speaking to a community of believers and referred to busybodies that wouldn't work. I agree if a able bodied person just won't work, we don't have an obligation to them. But there are a lot of poor who can't work. To say that there is no civil duty to them is wrong and is in contrast to what the founding fathers believed.

Look at the story of Joseph in Egypt. Because of God, Joseph was put in charge of collecting the grain from the people during the 7 years of bounty and distributing it during the 7 years of famine. Why didn't Joseph just warn people and let the foolish ones starve? Joseph used the powers of government to store the surplus and the redistribute it. Now granted, that story and the way I worded it could really be misused. I do not advocate socialism.

To say that there is no biblical basis for government being involved is false. Nor will you find any command for governments to abstain from helping the poor.

We also have a civil duty to those who can't find work or are temporarily down on their luck. Even Ben Franklin who said that the more you do for the poor the less they do for you, said that we have a responsibility to either lead them out of poverty or drive them out. To say government shouldn't be involved is to shirk the responsibility.

[doosee]

Something about me envies men with enough enterprise and balls to give the big middle finger to the government, saying "you've had enough already!"

If everyone thought like that and gave up their citizenship, who would defend the country? I think the Federal and State governments have gotten greedy and tax happy even to an extreme. But you dont solve the problem by abandoning what the founders created.

[Quix]

To A POINT, I agree.

But . . . are you SERIOUS?

. . . enjoying the SECURITY of this Grand land . . .

After Billdo and Shrillery Antoinette de Fosterizer de Marx de Pathological-liar de Marine-assaulter de Treasonous-bwitch de Sade have done all they so far can to insure the destruction of The Republic; the invasion of China, Russia, Lybia, Cuba and Mexico; the assumption of power over us of a tyrannical world government . . .

one could go on.

[Quix]

I'm not a fan of illegal tax evasion.

AND

[not but]

I'm not a fan at all of government taking liberties; destroying the unborn; destroying the Republic; removing discussion or mention of God from public life; etc.

I still say, the Constitution should be changed to REQUIRE each taxpayer to designate 55-65% of their tax bill to no less than 3 government departments and/or major projects. Let the bureaucrats addicted to living with their hands in our pockets balance things out with the remainder.

[Quix]

Reasonable points to a point.

HOWSOMEVER . . .

We seem to have long ago passed the point in this socialized charade of a Communist tyrannical state

where we have true REPRESENTATION WITH our taxation.

The politicians et al represent their own selfish power mongering interests above those of the Republic and definitely against the individual citizens. They represent what Ike warned us against--the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND THE GLOBALISTS INTENT ON GIVING US YET MORE TYRANNY AT OUR EXPENSE.

I'm not the least bit interested in kowtowing to that group.

But I do believe in paying owed taxes and changing the tax laws legally.

[ovrtaxt]

Quix, this Danny guy is a lost cause. He LIKES government spending. He LIKES taxation and wealth redistribution. It's like arguing with Illbay. They are probably Gov. employees or something. Or maybe he's a TN legislator, you know, the ones that start riots when they try to raise taxes?

Like a lamb to the slaughter, he holds no adversarial view of government. If only Stalin could have had 10 million Dannys...

[Quix]

You seem to be more correct than I'd prefer to think.

Sigh.

[DannyTN]

"we have true REPRESENTATION WITH our taxation"

I sympathize with your point. However, as long as our populace

• does not take the time to familiarize themselves with the issues,
• votes only for what they perceive as their best interest instead of what is good for the nation,
• and fails to recognize the importance that character plays in the role of a politician,

then I'm afraid and resigned that we do indeed have true representation. As terrible as that is.