The Business Case Against Overseas Tax Havens

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

It is inefficient to spend more in resources than the return you get.

Agree. So you are against welfare and food stamps too?

No - the nation gets a tangible return from those. Not that I'd expect you to comprehend that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

So the IRS isn't a reliable source on tax revenue matters. What have you been smoking?

"The government believes . . ."

Could that be more vague? What department of what branch of what level of government? The quoted number is not coming from the IRS or I would believe it. It is coming from an unnamed, unidentified government source making a statement about the IRS.

The reporter could be quoting a dog catcher in Cleveland.

And I am a happy drunk. I don't smoke anything that would put my job or pilot's license in jeopardy.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is inefficient to spend more in resources than the return you get.

Agree. So you are against welfare and food stamps too?

No - the nation gets a tangible return from those. Not that I'd expect you to comprehend that.

What tangible non monetary return would that be?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what's the solution to this problem?

i propose a specially designed virus to hack into the bank accounts of these tax havens - and erase them

Thus getting rid of the very money that you claim is the government's property - makes about as much sense as most of your 'claims'.

if they want their money back - they just have to prove it was in their accounts
(meanwhile we just print more money to replace that lost - easypeasy)

Ah, I see - so it's not about the gov't getting money it feels belongs to it (by your 'we just print more'), it's about punishing that EEEEVIL corporation.

Got it.

Question for you - where's the gov't going to get the money to pay unemployment for the employees when the company folds after this mythical 'virus' of yours?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

So the IRS isn't a reliable source on tax revenue matters. What have you been smoking?

"The government believes . . ."

Could that be more vague? What department of what branch of what level of government? The quoted number is not coming from the IRS or I would believe it. It is coming from an unnamed, unidentified government source making a statement about the IRS.

The reporter could be quoting a dog catcher in Cleveland.

And I am a happy drunk. I don't smoke anything that would put my job or pilot's license in jeopardy.

You could learn to use Google, it's so easy even a pilot can do it.

Try this, from the IRS:

www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=158619,00.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what's the solution to this problem?

i propose a specially designed virus to hack into the bank accounts of these tax havens - and erase them

Thus getting rid of the very money that you claim is the government's property - makes about as much sense as most of your 'claims'.

if they want their money back - they just have to prove it was in their accounts
(meanwhile we just print more money to replace that lost - easypeasy)

Ah, I see - so it's not about the gov't getting money it feels belongs to it (by your 'we just print more'), it's about punishing that EEEEVIL corporation.

it's about closing down tax havens - which my virus would do
(and no bloodshed)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[DiverMike 5]

I was responding to your original posting which you incorrectly attributed the quoted number to the IRS.

And quite frankly, I am not sure that sending an URL that has over 50 separate links clarifies your argument.

You were wrong about the quote. I was right. Can you respond to that?

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what's the solution to this problem?

i propose a specially designed virus to hack into the bank accounts of these tax havens - and erase them

Thus getting rid of the very money that you claim is the government's property - makes about as much sense as most of your 'claims'.

if they want their money back - they just have to prove it was in their accounts
(meanwhile we just print more money to replace that lost - easypeasy)

Ah, I see - so it's not about the gov't getting money it feels belongs to it (by your 'we just print more'), it's about punishing that EEEEVIL corporation.

it's about closing down tax havens - which my virus would do
(and no bloodshed)

And of course, that virus could NEVER be used against the government.

I notice you missed a bit of my post, though -

"Where's the gov't going to get the money to pay unemployment for the employees when the company folds after this mythical 'virus' of yours?"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Bolas 5]

Hafta be one helluva virus that could not only hack the systems, but the backup systems, the tertiary tape backup systems, the online tape backups, the offsite stored tape backups as well as all the paper records as well stored not only by the company but all their customers as well.

Even then, you wouldn't actually be deleting the money, just the record of ownership of it.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,119]

>if they want their money back - they just have to prove it was in
>their accounts

I do believe most companies have an odd sort of person called an "accountant" who might actually have a printout of their account - and could use that as easy proof to demonstrate that they did in fact have the money.

>(meanwhile we just print more money to replace that lost - easypeasy)

Well, if that's your solution, why not just print the money to begin with? Problem solved without resorting to crime to do it.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what's the solution to this problem?

i propose a specially designed virus to hack into the bank accounts of these tax havens - and erase them

Thus getting rid of the very money that you claim is the government's property - makes about as much sense as most of your 'claims'.

if they want their money back - they just have to prove it was in their accounts
(meanwhile we just print more money to replace that lost - easypeasy)

Ah, I see - so it's not about the gov't getting money it feels belongs to it (by your 'we just print more'), it's about punishing that EEEEVIL corporation.

it's about closing down tax havens - which my virus would do
(and no bloodshed)

And of course, that virus could NEVER be used against the government.

I notice you missed a bit of my post, though -

"Where's the gov't going to get the money to pay unemployment for the employees when the company folds after this mythical 'virus' of yours?"

the company won't fold - they just won't use tax havens again

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Hafta be one helluva virus that could not only hack the systems, but the backup systems, the tertiary tape backup systems, the online tape backups, the offsite stored tape backups as well as all the paper records as well stored not only by the company but all their customers as well.

Even then, you wouldn't actually be deleting the money, just the record of ownership of it.

the virus won't touch the companies - just delete the bank accounts held by the tax havens

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>if they want their money back - they just have to prove it was in
>their accounts

I do believe most companies have an odd sort of person called an "accountant" who might actually have a printout of their account - and could use that as easy proof to demonstrate that they did in fact have the money.

they 'had' the money - now it's been deleted

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 3,119]

>they 'had' the money - now it's been deleted

Right. But you can't delete paper. They still have the money.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The government believes if everyone paid what they owed, the IRS would collect $345 billion more

So the IRS isn't a reliable source on tax revenue matters. What have you been smoking?

Err, organizations have been known to fudge the numbers a bit to further their self interested agendas.

The RIAA/MPAA would have us believe that their industries lose tens of billions of dollars to piracy and therefore we should have fairly oppressive restrictions on fair use and other rights to combat it. There's little doubt their their accounting is suspect.

Aside from the patriotic interest in adding to the revenue, the IRS would like to have more power to enforce. More power overall. Despite your earlier thought, the reason to go against all, not just high payers, is to encourage compliance.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>they 'had' the money - now it's been deleted

Right. But you can't delete paper. They still have the money.

they have a claim on what 'might' be 'their' money (how do we know the paper accounts aren't fraudulent). if they get their money 'digitally' put back it won't be with tax havens again
(and still no bloodshed - shame eh)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 3,119]

>they have a claim on what 'might' be 'their' money (how do we know
>the paper accounts aren't fraudulent).

Same way you know the digital accounts aren't fraudulent, I suppose.

>if they get their money 'digitally' put back it won't be with tax havens again

Sure it will. Sweden will put it back in Sweden's bank.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

(and still no bloodshed - shame eh)

Still no grasp of reality-shame eh?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Not that I'd expect you to comprehend that.

And why would that be?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[wmw999 2,589]

It's not that hard to find on the website. It's in Reducing the Federal Tax Gap.

Just so that no actual reading has to be done, it's on page 8 under "Tax Gap Estimates."

Quote

The IRS has separate tax gap estimates for each of these three types of noncompliance.
Underreporting (in the form of unreported receipts and overstated expenses) constitutes over 82 percent of the gross tax gap, up slightly from earlier estimates. Underpayment constitutes
nearly 10 percent and nonfiling almost 8 percent

Quote

for the 2001 tax year, the overall gross tax gap was estimated to be
approximately $345 billion, corresponding to a noncompliance rate of 16.3 percent. After
accounting for enforcement efforts and late payments, the amount was reduced to $290 billion,
corresponding to a net noncompliance rate of 13.7 percent.

It's a valid source, provided by the IRS. I'm not sure what else you would require to accept the cite, but I'm sure there's something.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I was responding to your original posting which you incorrectly attributed the quoted number to the IRS.

And quite frankly, I am not sure that sending an URL that has over 50 separate links clarifies your argument.

You were wrong about the quote. I was right. Can you respond to that?

The number is from the IRS. The link I provided was to the IRS. The data are there if you can be bothered to read instead of whining about the validity of the source.

Of course, if you wish to bury your head in the sand there's not much I can do about it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Quote

And then they move overseas and become citizens/corporations of another country, hence losing the revenue source.

Sounds like a plan to me.

As far as being a direct source of tax revenue they already have moved. That's the issue. They chose to move on paper and stay physically located in the United States. Aside from the obvious problem that if you combined all the physical assets of every entity incorporated in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda you'd be hard pressed to fit all of it on those islands, there are reasons they stuck around.

Your concern, which is something at least worth thinking about, is that if you figured out a viable way to stop these paper moves to places with little or no taxes then the companies would make actual moves to places with lower taxes than the U.S. As a result you'd see no change in direct revenues, a loss of jobs, and a loss of indirect revenue as a result of lost jobs. I'm not sure the tax benefit gained by actually moving somewhere that has room for you will always or even most times outweigh the disadvantage of actually having to go there, but as I said it's something worth thinking about.

Quote

So you support tax evasion by the wealthy, but not by the middle class.

He's just trying to say you may not get as good a return on investment as you think you will by going after overseas tax havens.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

So you support tax evasion by the wealthy, but not by the middle class.

He's just trying to say you may not get as good a return on investment as you think you will by going after overseas tax havens.

As far as wealthy individuals go, if they are willing to renounce their US citizenship just for $$, I say good riddance and I hope they stay away.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And then they move overseas and become citizens/corporations of another country, hence losing the revenue source.

Sounds like a plan to me.

As far as being a direct source of tax revenue they already have moved. That's the issue. They chose to move on paper and stay physically located in the United States. Aside from the obvious problem that if you combined all the physical assets of every entity incorporated in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda you'd be hard pressed to fit all of it on those islands, there are reasons they stuck around.

I don't necessarily disagree, but corporate offices don't need huge amounts of space. The IRS still gets taxes from business operations and workers within the US, just like they do with any foreign company such as Nissan, Toyota, etc etc etc with business units inside the US.

Quote

Your concern, which is something at least worth thinking about, is that if you figured out a viable way to stop these paper moves to places with little or no taxes then the companies would make actual moves to places with lower taxes than the U.S. As a result you'd see no change in direct revenues, a loss of jobs, and a loss of indirect revenue as a result of lost jobs. I'm not sure the tax benefit gained by actually moving somewhere that has room for you will always or even most times outweigh the disadvantage of actually having to go there, but as I said it's something worth thinking about.

Semi agree, however, where the corporate offices are, there the corporation lives. However, as these laws become more prevalent and onerous, businesses will move lock, stock and barrel overseas and the US will lose the jobs and the money.

Quote

Quote

So you support tax evasion by the wealthy, but not by the middle class.

He's just trying to say you may not get as good a return on investment as you think you will by going after overseas tax havens.

That, as well as that you can't force a business to stay incorporated in the US any more than can force a citizen of the US to remain a citizen. Either can go to another country where they can no longer be touched.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[yourmomma 0]

Offshore banking write downs are far smaller for corporations than for personal and small businesses.As long as securitization of derivatives thru spv's(tax exempt business) are allowed there is no great need by the corporations to funnel money offshore. Tax law allows them to tie up losses and gains in a manner that greatly reduces their tax exposure. Those making 10's of millions in bonuses,like the drug dealers and politicians utilize offshore banking with tremendous personal results.