The Biggest Scam in the World

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Another example of how the ultra-wealthy and big corporations avoid paying their fair share of the tax burden - and they are supposedly paying too much? - Whatever...:rolleyes: I guess collecting money from the lower 40% of income earners is more important in some people's minds on this site, and elsewhere...:rolleyes:


June 12, 2007
The Biggest Scam in the World
Closing Down the Tax Haven Racket
By RALPH NADER

Lucy Komisar of the Tax Justice Network-USA (taxjustice-usa.org) spoke at the Conference on Taming the Giant Corporation last week about "Closing Down the Tax Haven Racket." Her words were so compelling that the rest of this column is devoted to excerpts from her presentation:

"The tax haven racket is the biggest scam in the world. It's run by the international banks with the cooperation of the world's financial powers for the benefit of corporations and the mega-rich. [M]ost Americans, including progressive activist Americans, don't know what I'm going to tell you. And that's part of the problem.

"Tax havens, also known as offshore financial centers, are places that operate secret bank accounts and shell companies that hide the names of real owners from tax authorities and law enforcement. They use nominees, front men. Sometimes offshore incorporation companies set up the shells. Sometimes the banks do it. Often someone will use a shell company in one jurisdiction that owns a shell in another jurisdiction that owns a bank account in a third. That's called layering. No one can follow the paper trial.

"Offshore is where most of the world's drug money is laundered, estimated at up to $500 billion a year, more than the total income of the world's poorest 20 percent. Perhaps another $500 billion comes from fraud and corruption.

"Those figures fit with [International Monetary Fund] numbers that as much as $1.5 trillion of illicit money is laundered annually, equal to two to five percent of global economic output.

"Wall Street wants this money. The markets would hurt, even shrivel without that cash. That's why Robert Rubin as Treasury Secretary had a policy, as Joseph Stiglitz told me, not to do anything that would stop the free flow of money into the US. He was not interested in stopping money laundering because the laundered funds ended up in Wall [Street], maybe in Goldman Sachs where he had worked, or Citibank, where he would work.

"Attempts to find laundered funds are usually dismal failures. According to Interpol, $3 billion in dirty money has been seized in 20 years of struggle against money laundering -- about the amount laundered in three days.

"The other major purpose of offshore is for tax evasion, estimated to reach another $500 billion a year.

"That's how corporations and the rich have opted out of the tax system.


"They have sophisticated mechanisms. There's transfer pricing. A company sets up a trading company offshore, sells its widgets there for under market price, the trading company sells it for market price, the profits are offshore, not where they really were generated.

"Two American professors, using customs data, examined the impact of over-invoiced imports and under-invoiced exports for 2001. Would you buy plastic buckets from the Czech Republic for $973 each, tissues from China at $1874 a pound, a cotton dishtowel from Pakistan for $154, and tweezers from Japan at $4,896 each!

"U.S. companies, at least on paper, were getting very little for their exported products. If you were in business, would you sell bus and truck tires to Britain for $11.74 each, color video monitors to Pakistan for $21.90, and prefabricated buildings to Trinidad for $1.20 a unit.

"Comparing all claimed export and import prices to real world prices, the professors figured the 2001 U.S. tax loss at $53.1 billion.

"Or a company sets up subsidiaries in tax havens to "own" logos or intellectual property. Like Microsoft does in Ireland, transferring software that was made in America, that benefited by work done by Americans, to Ireland so Microsoft can pay taxes there (at 11%) instead of here (at 35%). Why is Ireland getting the benefit of American-created software? It's legal. We need to change the law.

"When logos are offshore, the company pays royalties to use the logo and deducts the amount as expenses. But the payments are not taxed or are taxed minimally offshore where they are moved. When Cheney ran Halliburton, it increased its offshore subsidiaries from 9 to at least 44.

"Half of world trade is between various parts of the same corporations. Experts believe that as much as half the world's capital flows through offshore centers. The totals held offshore include 31 percent of the net profits of U.S. multinationals.

"The whole collection of tax scams is why between 1989 and 1995, of US and multi-national corporations operating in the United States, with assets of at least $250 million or sales of at least $50 million, nearly two-thirds paid no U.S. income tax.

"In 1996-2000, Goodyear's profits were $442 million, but it paid no taxes and got a $23-million rebate. Colgate-Palmolive made $1.6 billion and got back $21 million. Other companies that got rebates in 1998 included Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Pfizer, J.P. Morgan, MCI Worldcom, General Motors, Phillips Petroleum and Northrop Grumman. Microsoft reported $12.3 billion U.S income in 1999 and paid zero federal taxes. (In two recent years, Microsoft paid only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion pretax U.S. profits.)

"During the 1950s, U.S. corporations accounted for 28 percent of federal revenues. Now, corporations represent just 11 percent.


"Those unpaid taxes can buy a lot of politicians and power. When Nixon needed money to pay the Watergate burglars, he got it from some corporate offshore bank accounts.

"The system has given the big banks and corporations and the super-rich mountains of hidden cash they use to control our political systems.

"The offshore system must be dismantled.

"So why isn't the progressive movement doing something about this? This is a case where some people in Congress are ahead of the activists. There are a handful of Democrats like Senators Levin (MI), Dorgan (ND) and Conrad (ND), like Rep. Doggett (TX), who are speaking out and introducing legislation. But there is no movement behind them. And while Obama has signed onto the Levin Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, Clinton, Biden and Dodd have not."

Ms. Komisar spreads out the proposed strategies at taxjustice-usa.org. One or more are structured so that you can play a part in furthering them toward adoption.

As she concluded: "Let's get the country to tell the corporations that the taxes they are dodging is our money."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Happy Hippo

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,536
227
63
Bowling Green Ky
--is someone taking their ball and going home--where have I heard that before--

wouldn't be too cocerned--for now

Guess what--when Corps make money--people have jobs and make money--




Federal Deficit Sharply Lower

Jun 12 03:28 PM US/Eastern
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal deficit is running sharply lower through the first eight months of this budget year as growth in revenues continues to outpace the growth in spending.
The Treasury Department said that the deficit through May totaled $148.5 billion, down 34.6 percent from the same period a year ago.

That improvement came even though the deficit in May increased to $67.7 billion, up 57.8 percent from May 2006. However, analysts attributed this big increase to the fact that the Internal Revenue Service was more efficient in processing tax returns this year, meaning more revenue was collected in April with fewer tax collections left to be counted in May.

For the year, revenue and spending are both at record levels. Revenue gains are up 8 percent while outlays are up at a slower pace of 2.5 percent, compared to the same period a year ago. Growth in spending has been slower this year in part because of the absence of last year's huge outlays for hurricane relief.

The increase in revenues has been supported by continued strength in corporate profits and low unemployment, which has helped to push individual income taxes higher.
For the 2007 budget year, which ends on Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a federal deficit of $177 billion. That would be down 28.7 percent from last year's imbalance of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest deficit in four years---

It's always easy for the half empty crowd to complain--but to those I'd like to ask a question--which country would they prefer to live in--and more precise maybe one of my liberal brothers could point to a prosperous "socialist" economy.
---and why are immigrants from socialist countries doing anything possible to get here--and can't seem to find many from here wanting to migrate to these socialist economies--maybe not so bad huh--:shrug:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PNF8600&show_article=1
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IntenseOperator

redsfann

ale connoisseur
Forum Member
Aug 3, 1999
9,434
584
113
61
Somewhere in Corn Country
Typical of you Dogs to leave out the part of the article that you don't like...


Democratic critics, however, contend that Bush's spending blueprint was based on unrealistic assumptions and left out major spending items such as the full costs of the Iraq war. They also argue that the current improvement in the deficit will be only temporary as the 78 million baby boomers retire, pushing spending on Social Security and Medicare up in coming years
 
  • Like
Reactions: Happy Hippo

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
Bush will run a deficit for the last 7 of his 8 years as President. He caught the momentum of Clinton's budget in year 1 and has gone $ trillions in the red ever since.

DTB, it's so funny how you brag about a lower deficit. IT'S STILL A DEFICIT! If we ran deficits as individuals we'd all be broke. It's nothing to brag about. Be like Clinton and turn a profit!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IntenseOperator

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Bush will run a deficit for the last 7 of his 8 years as President. He caught the momentum of Clinton's budget in year 1 and has gone $ trillions in the red ever since.

DTB, it's so funny how you brag about a lower deficit. IT'S STILL A DEFICIT! If we ran deficits as individuals we'd all be broke. It's nothing to brag about. Be like Clinton and turn a profit!

I don't think he knows the difference between the deficit and the debt. And shame on you Chad you should very well know that the top 1 percent pay 99.99999999999 percent of the taxes. I always wondered if that was one of those neocon talking points that was full of shit. The way dog thinks you would think he was a multi billionaire.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Yeah, I agree smurph...Wayne brags about a reduced deficit - COMPARED TO THE OTHER BUSH YEARS. Way to go, you're doing better in the short term compared to what you've done in the long term. THANK GOD!

I wonder if the extra money consumers have spent on gas over the past few months have helped in overall receipts? Hmm...

'Nother point in your article: "However, analysts attributed this big increase to the fact that the Internal Revenue Service was more efficient in processing tax returns this year, meaning more revenue was collected in April with fewer tax collections left to be counted in May." So, will you be back next month to show how much fewer revenues were collected in May, and how much worse we're doing? I doubt it.

To answer your question...I'd much rather live in this country than in a socialist economic country. I like it here, where our taxes help pay for everything that makes our country free, safe, clean, nice, and a desired place to live.

As one really smart guy once said - ""Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.'' ? Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
I hate to relate real life things to movies

but....

Anybody see "Other Peoples Money"?

They can change the rules but the game is the same.

Player hate all you want but the sharps are not gonna lose.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,536
227
63
Bowling Green Ky
Ok Thought we went through this before

Deficeit and surplus would equal money taken in vs money spent--any arguements?

We already know which economy is taking in more tax revenue--so no question there.

So that brings us to spending.

Which era would you expect to have the higher spending--one that is fighting 2 wars--had greatest man made and natural disastesr in history--

--or one that had none of the above. Maybe we can ask the 5th graders :)
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,858
430
83
54
Belly of the Beast
Ok Thought we went through this before

Deficeit and surplus would equal money taken in vs money spent--any arguements?

We already know which economy is taking in more tax revenue--so no question there.

So that brings us to spending.

Which era would you expect to have the higher spending--one that is fighting 2 wars--had greatest man made and natural disastesr in history--

--or one that had none of the above. Maybe we can ask the 5th graders :)

We're fighting two wars, had the greatest man made and natural disaster in history, but you seem to think the record tax revenue is from cutting taxes.

I don't think a 5th grader would understand, but I'm certain an 8th grader would.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Ok Thought we went through this before

Deficeit and surplus would equal money taken in vs money spent--any arguements?

We already know which economy is taking in more tax revenue--so no question there.

So that brings us to spending.

Which era would you expect to have the higher spending--one that is fighting 2 wars--had greatest man made and natural disastesr in history--

--or one that had none of the above. Maybe we can ask the 5th graders :)

Wow, I'm having a hard time learning from your "teachings". Are you teaching me that there is actually some kind of surplus here? Please explain? Didn't you just post that we are currently (thanks to extra receipts taken in due to efficient tax collections in May, right?) running a deficit of $148.5 billion? Tell me again, how that is a surplus, Mr. Wizard? And what are you measuring it against? Last year, under this president, fighting his elective war and spending billions towards his supporters business treasure chests. It's a beautiful comparison, as mentioned above. You're doing better than you did before, which sucked. Congratulations, with your "surplus" deficit program.

I know what you are trying to construct here. But it's an arguable position, no matter what. Iraq was a choice. Live with the financial repercussions, and don't blame Clinton, who made different choices, which put the country in a better financial position. You can't have EVERYTHING, even though it's the conservative way, to be sure.

And please explain, again, why your guy is the only person on record - with an economics background or otherwise - to send us to war and advocate a dramatic reduction in taxes for a select group of individuals? Sacrifices for the soldiers, families, but the wealthy that they are providing the safety and protection to continually increase their wealth? Nah...they need more, to be "fair." Sad "state" of affairs, unless you are top dogs.
 

bear

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 17, 2000
1,883
12
38
79
Fairfield, CT., USA
Disgrace!!!!!!!!
......9 trillion in debt (on budget)
......72 trillion (in unfunded, off budget, SS,Medicare, Fed Pension obligations)
...... AND Windfall profits to the fat bastard, overpayed CEOs whose companies reap the benefits and PAY NO TAXES.
.........yeah, America is working..low pay, competing with illegal immigrants and overseas workers anxious for the outsourced jobs. rich..richer///poor.. poorer...See ya middle class. So who is paying the doctor bills etc. etc.
......If this great country comes down it will be because of white collar GREED!!!Why.. because they CAN...

bear
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I don't see why anyone would want to replace Bush as pres. What a mess and great chance of recession to get chit for.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,536
227
63
Bowling Green Ky
Not sure how CEO's would escape taxes but hard to find any records--only facts are that corporate and ind tax revenue are all time highs--

and if you'd like to single out oil companies you might want to read--
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/2195.html

If someone can show me facts on CEO's-corps ect not paying taxes--I'll be happy to put that into consideration--and if someone can show facts per -employment-inflation-interest rates ect how the tax cuts failed to enhance economy I'll listen.

Now can't say I believe tax cuts did it myself but it certainly didn't hurt and surely didn't create the doom and gloom the liberals predicted--

======================
June 10, 2007
Democrats' Prosperity Problem
By George Will

Early in George W. Bush's presidency, liberal critics said: The economy is not growing. Which was true. He inherited the debris of the 1990s' irrational exuberances. A brief (eight months) and mild (the mildest since World War II) recession began in March 2001, before any of his policies were implemented. It ended in November 2001.

In 2002, when his tax cuts kicked in and the economy began 65 months -- so far -- of uninterrupted growth, critics said: But it is a "jobless recovery." When the unemployment rate steadily declined -- today it is 4.5 percent; time was, 6 percent was considered full employment -- critics said: Well, all right, the economy is growing and creating jobs and wealth, but the wealth is not being distributed in accordance with the laws of God or Nature or liberalism or something.

Last Sunday, eight Democratic presidential candidates debated for two hours, saying about the economy . . . next to nothing. You must slog to Page 43 in the 51-page transcript before Barack Obama laments that "the burdens and benefits of this new global economy are not being spread evenly across the board" and promises to "institute some fairness in the system."

Well. When in the long human story have economic burdens and benefits been "spread evenly"? Does Obama think they should be, even though talents never are? What relationship of "fairness" does he envision between the value received by individuals and the value added by them? Does he disagree -- if so, on what evidence? -- with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that "the influence of globalization on inequality has been moderate and almost surely less important than the effects of skill-biased technological change"?

What Samuel Johnson said of Milton's "Paradise Lost" can be said of the debate's short discussion of economic matters: No one could wish it longer. Granted, the candidates had bigger fish to fry -- one another, for their various positions on starting and ending the war. And the questioners set the debate's agenda. But if the Democrats had anything pithy to say about the economy, they would have said it.

They have a problem. How do you exclaim, as Hillary Clinton does, that today's economy is "like going back to the era of the robber barons" and insist that the nation urgently needs substantial tax increases, in the face of these facts:

In the 102 quarters since Ronald Reagan's tax cuts went into effect more than 25 years ago, there have been 96 quarters of growth. Since the Bush tax cuts and the current expansion began, the economy's growth has averaged 3 percent per quarter, and more than 8 million jobs have been created. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product is below the post-World War II average.

Democrats, economic hypochondriacs all, see economic sickness. They should get on with legislating their cure.

Twenty-three months after the next president is inaugurated, the Bush tax cuts expire. The winner of the 2008 election and her or his congressional allies will determine what is done about the fact that, unless action is taken, in 2011 the economy will be walloped:

The five income tax brackets (10, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent) will be increased 50, 12, 10.7, 9.1 and 13.1 percent, respectively, to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6 percent. The child tax credit reverts to $500 from $1,000. The estate tax rate, which falls to zero in 2009, will snap back to a 60 percent maximum, and exemptions that have increased will decrease. The capital gains rate will rise, and the marriage penalty will be revived, as will the double taxation of dividends.

Furthermore, the alternative minimum tax was enacted by Democratic moralists in 1969 because 21 millionaires had legally avoided paying any income tax. The AMT, which allows almost no deductions, had one rate (24 percent) until 1993, when Democrats replaced it with two (26 percent and 28 percent). It has never been indexed for inflation and in the current tax year will hit almost one in five households -- 23 million of them.

Democrats need not confine themselves to their ritual tropes about how "the middle class is under assault" (Clinton again). They control Congress; they can act. The unemployed John Edwards, who has the luxury of irresponsibility, challenges Democrats to repeal the Bush tax cuts they disapprove of rather than wait for them to expire.

Democrats cannot end the war (actually, they can but won't), but they can send their tax agenda to the president and dare him to veto it. They can, but they won't. Do you wonder why?

georgewill@washpost.com

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/democrats_prosperity_problem.html
 
Last edited:

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,858
430
83
54
Belly of the Beast
and if you'd like to single out oil companies you might want to read--
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/2195.html

From your article, Dogs

While they were recording record profits last year, they were also writing checks to Uncle Sam to the tune of $100.7 billion -- two and a half times what they made in net profit. In fact, previous Tax Foundation research found that from 1977 to 2004, federal and state governments extracted $397 billion by taxing the profits of the largest oil companies and an additional $1.1 trillion in taxes at the pump. In today's dollars, that's $2.2 trillion.

http://ir.exxonmobil.com/phoenix.zh...vPXRlbmsmaXBhZ2U9NDcwODY1MiZkb2M9MSZudW09ODM=

Exxon has a schedule in their financial statements in their last 10-K that states that they expensed $100.7 billion for taxes during 2006. The problem is that their schedule shows that the US only accounts for $13.7 Billion of that total and that 13.7 total includes $7 Billion worth of sales taxes (that Exxon just collects from their consumers and pays to the government - it's a consumer tax not theirs) and actually only "paid" approximately $2.8 Billion in tax on about $112 Billion in revenue.

I've always known these numbers were skewed that come from your "unbiased" tax foundation because they just don't pass the smell test, but these are just outright lies and as an author for the tax foundation, he has to know the truth.

Thanks for the "facts", DTB
 
  • Like
Reactions: smurphy

bear

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 17, 2000
1,883
12
38
79
Fairfield, CT., USA
DTB..
Corporate and Ind. tax revenue are at all time highs simply because dollars are so cheap.
Hey..no more money supply numbers hmmm..wonder why??
Defecit as a % of GDP below post WW2 averages..
What defecit..trade defecits??? Budget defecits???
What about the 9 trillion dollar(on budget) National debt???
More important the (off budget) obligations that are approximately 72 TRILLION..these are trillions of dollars and taxes won't even pay the interest before long.
Tax Cuts for the rich have made the top 10% SUPER rich and INFLATION>>>>YES INFLATION
(GOVT. will tell you that we have none and its been negligible for years) Inflation has made the average American a huge credit card debtor with a NEGATIVE SAVINGS RATE for the first time. Reagans tax cuts we're supposed to put people to work, have them invest and increase savings! they did.. NOT TODAY
TODAY..even with job growth...jobs don't pay enough (on average) for people to save and invest...too many DESTITUTE minimum wage workers requiring services...that drive up cost of living for the average Joe (ex. insurance) Then factor TAXES
CT has 4 cities that pay approximately 100 million toward their ED budgets of 700+ million...who pays the rest??
We had a marginal tax rate of 90% after the depression Kennedy cut it to 70% and tax revenues rose
There was a supposed dis-incentive to hide income for the rich with the decreased Taxes.........
Today the SUPER RICH become SUPER RICH because of the corporate bottom line, tied to bonuses and option packages... and that is BIG INCENTIVE TO lower costs WAGES (outsource, etc.) HIDE $$$$$ and drive profits.
Just one man's opinion!

bear
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,536
227
63
Bowling Green Ky
Gentlemen Just give me some facts to the contrary.

Bobby Interesting link to Exxon--thanks

Looks like we can agree on one thing--they paid almost 3 billion in taxes--

--also bear in mind their expense of research and development totals millions each quarter--



My Buddy Bear

We grew up in about same period and have seen people in our parents generation do pretty well for making so little money--I think we both realize its not about what you make-its what you do with it. I believe it would be safe to say your parents never had a credit card and as mine probably still don't. If you didn't have the chips you did without--I have 0 sympathy for those who spend beyond their means and 0 tolerance for the credit issuers that exploit their weakness. It's a diff world my friend.
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,858
430
83
54
Belly of the Beast
Looks like we can agree on one thing--they paid almost 3 billion in taxes--

--also bear in mind their expense of research and development totals millions each quarter--

We can agree that they pay almost 3 billion in taxes and I think we can agree that it's substantially less than the $100.7 billion that your unbiased source told us about. We can also probably agree that our effective tax rates (you and me) were higher than the 19% that Exxon pays.

I believe where we differ is that I'm outraged that a Company pays a lower tax rate than me and you're outraged that someone making $20,000 a year doesn't pay any income taxes.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
"I have 0 sympathy for those who spend beyond their means"

Now that is some classic stuff coming from a republican. Seems like there is some kind of pattern here of spending beyond their means, but I just can't quite put my finger on it. :SIB

National-Debt-GDP.gif
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Quick question, Wayne, before I do some searching for what you ask for.

Do you support tax cuts for some Americans at a time of war and record deficits at least in part due to the war?
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Yes, of course you have "0 sympathy for those who spend beyond their means and 0 tolerance for the credit issuers that exploit their weakness."

However, you are always the first to sing the praises of tax receipts and talk about the robust economy, people spending money, buying things, etc. Clearly, people have been doing it at ever-increasing numbers with the use of credit cards and second mortgages, many of which are now in default. More and more people are less and less able to save - although the ultra-wealthy are more and more able to invest. And you maintain the system is unfair to the only people who are REALLY taking advantage of whatever robust economy you are selling.

As I have maintained, and you have continued to ignore, we could probably afford to reduce taxes across the board if we didn't have to take 1/3 of tax receipts to pay debt payments on the deficit.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top