Why the rich dont pay taxes.

Originally posted by Barts
A profound statement. I guess no else had the insight that people who are not breaking laws are acting legally. In a slightly more serious vein, the point of this thread seems to be whether a tax code that allows this is a good one.

Its whether it represents and honest and fair appraisal of their tax liability.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As far as I am aware, creditors do not get to dictate the policy of a company. For
example you put your money into a bank, you are a creditor to that bank, does that
then entitle you to dictate what the bank does with your money? hardly, you will now
tell the forum why Greece is any different?

Creditors have certain rights and the government wanted to avoid a default which would presumably ruin their economy. They need an infusion of money and to get new money from their week financial position they had to reform some of their irresponsible economic ways. Greece could have refused the conditions and let their economy collapse. They did not. Instead they made a deal. They are big boys and there should be no crying about deals.

Originally posted by quackquack
Creditors have certain rights and the government wanted to avoid a default which would presumably ruin their economy. They need an infusion of money and to get new money from their week financial position they had to reform some of their irresponsible economic ways. Greece could have refused the conditions and let their economy collapse. They did not. Instead they made a deal. They are big boys and there should be no crying about deals.

creditors have what rights? they do not have any right to dictate the policies of a
company to whom they have given money, the only rights that they have is to
reclaim the value of that money on liquidation, through the sale of assets etc etc,
usually given as a percentage of the initial sum they invested.

If you give your money to a bank, the government of Greece, your friend, the
money is no longer yours, its is the banks, the Government of Greece and your
friends money, you have no say on what your bank, the government of Greece or
your friend does with the value of that money, that is why its a nonsense for you to
state that creditors have rights in this context. You are failing to get the point, the
Greeks are not only protesting against the terms of the so called, 'deal', they are
protesting against the erosion of democratic rights, having creditors impose a policy
upon them, which is entirely without precedent.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
creditors have what rights? they do not have any right to dictate the policies of a
company to whom they have given money, the only rights that they have is to
reclaim the value of that money on liquidation, through the sale of assets etc etc,
usually given as a percentage of the initial sum they invested.

If you give your money to a bank, ...[text shortened]... tic rights, having creditors impose a policy
upon them, which is entirely without precedent.

The idea that Greece should be allowed to borrow money, not pay it back avoid to the agreed consequence of not paying it back, borrow more money and not have to obey those conditions seems absurd to me.

Creditors rights depend on the lending agreement. Often they have the right to a large default payment. Greece clearly did not want to face the consequences of not paying its bills. It could have defaulted and withdrawn from the Euro but it chose not to do so feeling (probably because its main industries of shipping or tourism would benefit) that it was better to have some austerity and stay part of the larger group.

Greece's credit rating would have been further downgraded (its sovereign debt rating was BB+ or junk status) making it more expensive and/ or difficult to borrow money. In May of 2010 it wanted a new 110 milion pound loan. To get that it needed to agree to a number of austerity measures.

Originally posted by quackquack
If you presume that someone is a freeloader and refuse to let anyone question that assumption then than there is nothing to discuss. There certainly is an argument that multi-national corporations (like everyone) have a right to legally use tax rules to pay less taxes.

I do not presume anything, I offer my observations like any other poster, and like any other posters observations, they are open to question by posters who wish to post their own observations.

What do you call an entity that uses the infrastructure and populace of a given society to make a chit load of money, and does not pay a penny toward the provision of that infrastructure or populace.

The important thing to discuss here is what is the relationship between these free loaders and the organs of governance in the donor societies. Just my observation.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I do not presume anything, I offer my observations like any other poster, and like any other posters observations, they are open to question by posters who wish to post their own observations.

What do you call an entity that uses the infrastructure and populace of a given society to make a chit load of money, and does not pay a penny toward the provision ...[text shortened]... een these free loaders and the organs of governance in the donor societies. Just my observation.

I have no problem with you believing or posting what you wish. I simply believe that when you call someone a freeloader you are not opening a "fair tax" discussion, instead you have already concluded the issue.

Unless you show me that companies that you call free loaders are not outsiders who legally meet their taxation obligations, I'll look at multinational companies as providers of jobs that people need and goods that people want.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the point of course was that there is a clear disparity, on the one hand the
government is intent on cracking down on sole traders who use services like ebay and
yet create a system whereby the corporation itself can siphon off their profits while
avoiding paying anything like the tax they have generated on sales. Traditionally
corporations ...[text shortened]... ns say, nickels and dimes. Why do you think the
government favour the rich in this way, Norm?

"Why do you think the government favour the rich in this way, Norm?"

First let's separate corporations and the rich. They are not inseparable. Actually, multinational corporations may be very poor indeed with little or no actual net worth.

The rich are often not incorporated at all, or engaged in any current business producing income.

Entities which can afford accountants and legal counsel will use these assets to minimize their taxes, just as joe six pack uses his party and local tax preparer to minimize his.

Who has the greater leverage? You tell me. The corporations and the rich may have the money and resources, but they are at a severe disadvantage in terms of constituency.

Originally posted by quackquack
I have no problem with you believing or posting what you wish. I simply believe that when you call someone a freeloader you are not opening a "fair tax" discussion, instead you have already concluded the issue.

Unless you show me that companies that you call free loaders are not outsiders who legally meet their taxation obligations, I'll look at multinational companies as providers of jobs that people need and goods that people want.

You are entitled to look at them how you wish, I call a spade a spade.

"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/good-bean-counters-starbucks-has-paid-no-tax-in-uk-since-2009-8212579.html"

There is a link for you concerning some of these 'freeloading' corporate 'parasites' who actually, in the case of Starbucks destroy at least as many jobs as they create when they use their corporate muscle to displace home grown smaller coffee outlets and family owned cafe's.

The point of the thread is to discuss why their tax dodges are legal, and does it point to democratic govts being in collusion with, or powerless against these multinational's.

Originally posted by normbenign
"Why do you think the government favour the rich in this way, Norm?"

First let's separate corporations and the rich. They are not inseparable. Actually, multinational corporations may be very poor indeed with little or no actual net worth.

The rich are often not incorporated at all, or engaged in any current business producing income.

Entities ...[text shortened]... have the money and resources, but they are at a severe disadvantage in terms of constituency.

LOL and if I could figure out how to get a larger script I would use it, the rich mans sycophant strikes again.

The point of the thread is to discuss why their tax dodges are legal, and does it point to democratic govts being in collusion with, or powerless against these multinational's.[/b]

I believe that democratic governments are controled by Multinationals. obviously not directly but incidentally.These companies go ( all things being equal) where they are required to contribute the least to the society as possible. They dress it up as 'where they can make the most profit'. The more efficient the workers are, the more other workers that they put out of work. The efficiencies only serve the execs. The shareholders are incidental winners. The criteria for the execs pay.( which is increasing at a far greater pace than the workers) is only partly based on the companies performance. Often they make changes for the sake of change. If it 'seems' to work, Bonus time. Cut jobs, Bonus time. rationalize the workforce, Bonus time. expand the workforce, Bonus time. Hard Business conditions, Bonus time, etc etc. OH I forgot, also good performance. When these corporations crash, they take there cut on the way down. ABSOLUTELY NO ACCOUNTABILITY. The goverments are forced to play on their terms because if you don't play their game they will take their money somewhere else. The problem is, it is NOT theirs it belongs to the shareholders that have No say in things whatsoever. I am not talking about the directors of other companies that vote on their shareholders behalf, they are all part of the same club, I am talking about the Mum and Dad shareholders.
Multinational companies are mainly Bad for the people.End of story.