It's tax AVOIDANCE; you know, what every taxpayer and business legally does.
Suggestion to Whitewashed Postings owners to avoid the appearance of hypocricy: call your corporate auditors and tell them you'd like to stop avoiding taxes, claim no business expenses, and pay the maximum taxes possible. With luck, you morons will be out of business in a year.
With major corporate responsibility legislation passed, elected officials are turning to a new target -- business tax evaders -- in a scramble to convince voters they are cracking down on corporate wrongdoing.
"Congress is rushing to pass a bill outlawing corporate fraud. If they really want to outlaw fraud, maybe they should just pass a bill outlawing Congress."
Here's just one example of what taxpayers money is used for.
"If drugs make you stupid what does that say about someone who declares war on them, inanimate objects that they are, and is losing?"
It's a war against people.
Tom Daschle, Libdem/Chicom-S.D., said Tuesday the issue was one of patriotism with the Sept. 11 anniversary approaching. Democrats Take on Tax Havens Issue (projectile hurl warning...)
Yeah right, that's the ticket. ;^)
Republicans are scrambling for a response to U.S. companies moving their headquarters to foreign tax havens after Democrats scored political points with voters by painting the exodus as yet another example of corporate irresponsibility. Democrats Take on Tax Havens Issue (projectile hurl warning...)
Fortunately the job creators and market providers chose only to move the books offshore and not the jobs and manufacturing. How long until the U.S. government makes it such a competitive disadvantage that businesses move their entire operations offshore?
Two articles from which I quote a few paragraphs from. Both are from Action America.
US Taxpatriates
Compiled by the Internal Revenue Service
http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/taxpats.html
The following links are to the US Government's official lists of Taxpatriates, as compiled quarterly by the IRS, required under 26 USC 877(a)(1). Under this law, the people on this list may be taxed for ten years after they renounced their citizenship. Furthermore. under 8 USC 1182(a)(10)(E)), these persons may not be allowed back into the US for any reason.
* * *
The Privacy Factor
Yet Another Reason Why The
Wealthy Are Leaving The USA
http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/privfactor.html
Every time another millionaire leaves the United States, the US tax base is reduced proportionately and the remaining taxpayers take another small hit. It is the total of all of those small hits that makes this issue significant. But, there is a side to this issue, in which each expatriation is much more significant and that could be potentially much more devastating. I'm not talking about just the wealthy any more. I'm talking about the super-wealthy. BILLIONAIRES!...
...In the discussion that followed, a whole new light began to shine. This billionaire, who I have reason to believe would rank in the top 100, of the 538 billionaires on the Forbes World's Richest People list, was not on the list at all, because of one reason. He chooses not to be. He chooses PRIVACY. But, as he pointed out to me, that would not be enough, if he were still a US citizen....
...As a US citizen, he would have to report to the IRS annually, ALL of his worldwide earnings, regardless of where in the world the income was generated or where it was banked. That would mean that ALL of the financial information necessary to trace his net worth would be accessible in one place. Years ago, as his net worth approached the level that would have placed him on the Forbes 400 Richest Americans list, he found that scenario to be unacceptable; hence, expatriation. Are you beginning to see where this is leading?...
...The point is, that beyond fear of the IRS and their confiscatory powers, the super wealthy have a far more powerful reason for choosing expatriation - their desire for Personal Privacy....
Foreign Wealth is Leaving Too
...It gets even worse. Because of the IRS implementation, earlier this year, of "Qualified Intermediary" (QI) Regulations, privacy concerned foreign billionaires (and millionaires), who have until recently been responsible for large amounts of foreign investment in the United States, are now moving their investments to more "private" jurisdictions, as well. The reason is simple. The QI Regulations require foreign financial institutions who invest client money in the United States to reveal the true identity of individual investors or lose the right to serve as a "Qualified Intermediary" for US investments. Those billionaires (and millionaires) who want to preserve their privacy are just directing those financial institutions to invest their money elsewhere....
...So now, not only is the IRS driving privacy concerned US billionaires out of the United States, with all of their investment capital and tax base, but they are driving privacy concerned foreign billionaires (and millionaires) to invest their wealth offshore, as well. In today's market, there are many other places where the wealthy can invest their money for a similar risk and return, without having to sacrifice their privacy as part of the price.
I believe that this is the vote that I watched the other day on C-SPAN. It was on a Rosa DeLauro amendment. The number of Republicans voting against was somewhere near 200 but there were enough voting for it that the Republicans knew they couldn't win. About 100 of the Republicans then switched their vote.
A similar amendment was introduced in the Senate on (I believe) the appropriations for the Defense Department. I watched a speech by Phil Gramm (R-TX). He called it for what it is. It is extremely popular - as evidenced by some of the ridiculous statements here on FR - but is it good public policy?
As Senator Gramm said, a company domiciled in the U.S. now pays corporate taxes on earnings from all of their enterprises - even those overseas. Other countries don't tax corporations as much as we do.
And, as Senator Gramm said, the tax code says that any company, no matter where they are domiciled, pays U.S. taxes on income earned in the U.S..
Thus, a company such as Stanley, if they changed their domicile offshore, would still pay taxes in the U.S. for income earned in the U.S..
The amendment offered in the Senate (by that communist Paul Wellstone) would forbid the Defense Department from buying from Stanley (if they changed their domicile) but would allow them to buy from foreign copmpanies in China, Germany, etc. even if they hired not one damned American worker.
Do you idiots out there really understand the problem?