Subject:
|
Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:31:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
426 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Whether or not they spend more or less money than they would if all their
properties were in ‘Merry Old England’, is irrelevant--it all balances out.
|
Ah, the myth of the global economy rears its ugly head! The global economy is
only good for people that can move hundreds of millions from a country doing
poorly to one that is doing better. If you are not dealing in hundreds of
millions then it matters a lot more where people are paying their taxes for the
benefits that you provide to them via the govt.
Anyway, that was just to make a smaller point of how natural persons may act vs.
corporate fictitious persons, and not for much more. I have less argument with
a single family arranging their affairs in order to avoid paying any more in
taxes than they absolutely must. Plus, I never claimed the royals were doing
anything illegal or that they were provided any unusual or extraordinary
benefits as many corporations are thusly “benefitted” in the U.S.
| |
Should gov’t ‘bail out’ corps? Probably not, imho. It interferes with the
market--if the ‘hand of the market’ makes it such that a corp cannot generate
revenue to keep the company afloat, then, like ‘market evolution in action’,
it’s time for the unfit to perish.
|
Bail out is only one side of it. Many corporations are given innumerable
incentives to merely place their bases of operation within a given jurisdiction.
Then they turn around and do stuff like this:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/taxhavens2.html
and (as previously posted here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=21814):
Banks Used Investment Funds to Shelter Hundred of Millions From State Taxes
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-05.htm
NEW YORK - At least 10 large banks avoided state taxes on hundreds of millions
of dollars by setting up investment funds that didn’t offer shares to the
public, but instead paid tax-exempt dividends back to the banks, according to a
newspaper report.
edit: file under “deal-breakers?” or “how to make money in Shrub’s big business
economy -- steal if from your legitimate corporate taxes!” I’d be surprised if
anyone even got a slap on the wrist for this stuff, but woe to you petty thieves
-- you will do hard time!
This is such a huge problem that atty.s are now considering doing away with
privilege if a public good is served by calling out the unethical practices of a
corporation. It is absolutely a matter of degree in the offense. More on that
anon (in a future post I am still mulling over).
| |
all that it does is, as someone else said, win the votes of ‘middle America’.
|
Another myth. There is increasingly only those that barely make enough to meet
basic necessities -- and woe to them should a financial crisis arise; and those
that are vastly wealthy -- wealthy enough to weather any financial storm. The
“middle class”, more truly the lowest classes since it is at least a matter of
degrees, are actually more heavily burdened than are the richest classes.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
