You don't have to have the lowest tax rate; you can have a reasonable tax rate and companies will on-shore their profits. Many countries are examples of that (including Singapore, for example). Too high and you offshore as much as you can. Reasonable rates, and companies will still on-shore profits because it does allow you to leverage your cash in your own domestic markets and financials.
It was Richard Armitage who leaked the name. Libby was not charged with the leak at all; he was actually charged and convicted with obstruction of justice and perjury. And President Bush did not pardon him - he commuted the prison sentence but left the financial penalty and the conviction in place (meaning Libby is now and will forever be, barring some future pardon, a convicted Federal felon).
Even the NY Times has written about it. And contrary to what the Hillary camp/Obama Administration are trying to use to deflect, classified - and secret - information is rarely marked as such. It's implied in who it came from and what the subject is about. So you treat ALL information as classified at the beginning, and treat it as unclassified if after a review it's determined to be such. That's why everything starts on a secured e-mail system in the first place. And that's why Hillary using her own unsecured server is a major breach and illegal action.
From a legal standpoint, there is classified or not. The degree of classification is irrelevant. Classified information is to be handled in certain ways - from low-level classified information to top secret. Failure with any classified information is the breach, is the illegal activity.
There are multiple grades of murder, from involuntary manslaughter to premeditated murder. But all are murder, and all are illegal and all have penalties associated. Claiming otherwise is simply a "laws for thee and not for me" abrogation of the rule of law.
So the issue isn't the company acting completely legally and even ethically (given the intent of corporations to maximize profits for their owners). It's countries offering taxation terms and rates that other countries (typically larger, more powerful countries at that) cannot or do not want to match. So rather than adapt to their more nimble competitors, the big countries will penalize the corporations.
So if I work in, say, Thailand but am a US citizen who doesn't set foot in the US for the entire year, should I still have to pay US taxes? Note that I'd pay Thai taxes...
Likewise with corporations. I have taxes I pay here, domestically - but if a significant amount of my revenue is earned overseas, why should I pay domestic taxes on foreign earned and held income? Note that I'll pay the required corporate taxes of the overseas jurisdiction, as demanded by law.
In reality, we should simply drop the whole corporate income tax thing altogether. Simply implement a national sales tax. Tax consumption, not income. Encourage self-investment, savings, wealth creation rather than punish it.
For a couple of thousand dollars, you too can be a multi-national company with an HQ overseas in a tax haven. What's stopping you from doing the same thing? You can also keep most of your earnings overseas. Of course - just like the big guys - when you repatriate those funds you'll pay taxes on them, but that's at a time of YOUR choosing, not when the Government demands.
No, he's right. It's about $1200 to $2000 to form an overseas company. And about $400-$1000 per year to keep it alive. If your taxes are higher than that - then you can benefit from incorporating overseas, and moving a significant portion of your profits overseas as well. Run your consulting business through that company, and pay yourself a small fraction of that - keeping most of your profits overseas. Have the HK company charge your normal $100+ / hour billing rate, and then it pays you, the lowly worker, the $30-$40/hour you want to actually make.
You end up keeping $60-$70/hour in Hong Kong that you can use for other purposes. Buying property, paying for research "junkets" overseas, etc. But the second you repatriate that money - you have to pay taxes on it (which explains why Apple, Google, and others keep trillions overseas).
I personally am a big fan of Hong Kong. They do not tax income earned outside the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, so if you never set foot in HK (and you do NOT need to in order to maintain a business there), you will never pay income taxes in HK - only in your home country on the income you choose to repatriate. And HK does not have a "sullied' reputation as a tax haven like the Bahamas, Seychelles, and Cayman Islands.
That is, in fact, how it works today. You pay corporate profits taxes at the rate of the country in which you earned those profits. High-tax jurisdictions don't like this, though, because companies will shift their profit centers to those low-tax jurisdictions. And somehow that's "not fair".
I wonder how many of those bureaucrats clammoring for "fair share" tax payments refuse to take deductions on their own personal income, and ensure they pay at least 64% to match the highest personal income tax rate in the EU - all in the name of equality and fairness, of course.
Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.
Since the Panama Papers, a new clause has reportedly been added to require the companies to say how much money they make in so-called "tax havens."
To pretty much every country, every other country charging a lower corporate tax rate is a "tax haven". Why don't they just come out and state they want to tax earnings made overseas since other countries are somehow able to charge lower tax rates, and that's "not fair"...
To most SJWs, speech which offends is as bad as murder. "Microaggression" = physical assault.
Now give me my safe space with "cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets, and a video of frolicking puppies". Because confronting ideas that I don't like is harmful and makes me regress to 4 years old.
So what has Trump actually said that's so controversial? That those who are in the country illegally should be sent home and allowed to use the legal, normal process to enter?
As half an interracial marriage, been there - done that (hate group, both sides). Didn't change my opinion at all. Tolerance means letting others speak their mind, and LEGALLY do whatever they want to do (note: illegally entering a country doesn't make those who want to uphold the law haters - it makes the illegal alien a criminal). After all, better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open in and remove all doubt.
I'm sure you were all over President Obama when he told his supporters to "get in the face" of others. To "bring a gun when they bring a knife". That those politically opposed to him should "shut up and get in the back of the bus". Right? I mean, that's all peace and lovey-dovey, right?
Which just goes to show, those who claim to be "liberal" and push the "social justice" nonsense are not liberal at all; they are hard-core authoritarians, fascists. Mel Brooks is as far from an SJW as one can be.
Slashdot Mirror
Still below the level set in 1985...
You don't have to have the lowest tax rate; you can have a reasonable tax rate and companies will on-shore their profits. Many countries are examples of that (including Singapore, for example). Too high and you offshore as much as you can. Reasonable rates, and companies will still on-shore profits because it does allow you to leverage your cash in your own domestic markets and financials.
You can tax too much - and you can tax too little. Taxation of zero ends up without enough infrastructure to support multi-national corporations. Check out the Laffer Curve; perhaps most of those big countries are too high? Especially for the US. Not only do we have the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the developed world, and the second highest effective corporate tax rate in the world. I surmise if the US corporate tax rate was down around the OECD average, you'd have a lot less offshoring of profits and operations.
It was Richard Armitage who leaked the name. Libby was not charged with the leak at all; he was actually charged and convicted with obstruction of justice and perjury. And President Bush did not pardon him - he commuted the prison sentence but left the financial penalty and the conviction in place (meaning Libby is now and will forever be, barring some future pardon, a convicted Federal felon).
Even the NY Times has written about it. And contrary to what the Hillary camp/Obama Administration are trying to use to deflect, classified - and secret - information is rarely marked as such. It's implied in who it came from and what the subject is about. So you treat ALL information as classified at the beginning, and treat it as unclassified if after a review it's determined to be such. That's why everything starts on a secured e-mail system in the first place. And that's why Hillary using her own unsecured server is a major breach and illegal action.
From a legal standpoint, there is classified or not. The degree of classification is irrelevant. Classified information is to be handled in certain ways - from low-level classified information to top secret. Failure with any classified information is the breach, is the illegal activity.
There are multiple grades of murder, from involuntary manslaughter to premeditated murder. But all are murder, and all are illegal and all have penalties associated. Claiming otherwise is simply a "laws for thee and not for me" abrogation of the rule of law.
We're slouching towards the China of the 1970s. Meanwhile, they're heading towards the US of the 60s...
So the issue isn't the company acting completely legally and even ethically (given the intent of corporations to maximize profits for their owners). It's countries offering taxation terms and rates that other countries (typically larger, more powerful countries at that) cannot or do not want to match. So rather than adapt to their more nimble competitors, the big countries will penalize the corporations.
So if I work in, say, Thailand but am a US citizen who doesn't set foot in the US for the entire year, should I still have to pay US taxes? Note that I'd pay Thai taxes...
Likewise with corporations. I have taxes I pay here, domestically - but if a significant amount of my revenue is earned overseas, why should I pay domestic taxes on foreign earned and held income? Note that I'll pay the required corporate taxes of the overseas jurisdiction, as demanded by law.
In reality, we should simply drop the whole corporate income tax thing altogether. Simply implement a national sales tax. Tax consumption, not income. Encourage self-investment, savings, wealth creation rather than punish it.
For a couple of thousand dollars, you too can be a multi-national company with an HQ overseas in a tax haven. What's stopping you from doing the same thing? You can also keep most of your earnings overseas. Of course - just like the big guys - when you repatriate those funds you'll pay taxes on them, but that's at a time of YOUR choosing, not when the Government demands.
No, he's right. It's about $1200 to $2000 to form an overseas company. And about $400-$1000 per year to keep it alive. If your taxes are higher than that - then you can benefit from incorporating overseas, and moving a significant portion of your profits overseas as well. Run your consulting business through that company, and pay yourself a small fraction of that - keeping most of your profits overseas. Have the HK company charge your normal $100+ / hour billing rate, and then it pays you, the lowly worker, the $30-$40/hour you want to actually make.
You end up keeping $60-$70/hour in Hong Kong that you can use for other purposes. Buying property, paying for research "junkets" overseas, etc. But the second you repatriate that money - you have to pay taxes on it (which explains why Apple, Google, and others keep trillions overseas).
I personally am a big fan of Hong Kong. They do not tax income earned outside the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, so if you never set foot in HK (and you do NOT need to in order to maintain a business there), you will never pay income taxes in HK - only in your home country on the income you choose to repatriate. And HK does not have a "sullied' reputation as a tax haven like the Bahamas, Seychelles, and Cayman Islands.
That is, in fact, how it works today. You pay corporate profits taxes at the rate of the country in which you earned those profits. High-tax jurisdictions don't like this, though, because companies will shift their profit centers to those low-tax jurisdictions. And somehow that's "not fair".
I wonder how many of those bureaucrats clammoring for "fair share" tax payments refuse to take deductions on their own personal income, and ensure they pay at least 64% to match the highest personal income tax rate in the EU - all in the name of equality and fairness, of course.
I think Judge Billings Learned Hand said it best:
Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.
Since the Panama Papers, a new clause has reportedly been added to require the companies to say how much money they make in so-called "tax havens."
To pretty much every country, every other country charging a lower corporate tax rate is a "tax haven". Why don't they just come out and state they want to tax earnings made overseas since other countries are somehow able to charge lower tax rates, and that's "not fair"...
Heck, let's just jack everyone up to the level of the US, near 47% just to make it fair worldwide...
And that the transwoman in a crop top and sexy miniskirt touching up her lipstick in the men's room mirror won't encounter any problems at all there.
You mean like this?
Jeez, just trail a long cable behind!
As an example?
To most SJWs, speech which offends is as bad as murder. "Microaggression" = physical assault.
Now give me my safe space with "cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets, and a video of frolicking puppies". Because confronting ideas that I don't like is harmful and makes me regress to 4 years old.
They are welcome to confirm their own intolerance that they try to strenuously deny, and I will revel in mine.
So what has Trump actually said that's so controversial? That those who are in the country illegally should be sent home and allowed to use the legal, normal process to enter?
As half an interracial marriage, been there - done that (hate group, both sides). Didn't change my opinion at all. Tolerance means letting others speak their mind, and LEGALLY do whatever they want to do (note: illegally entering a country doesn't make those who want to uphold the law haters - it makes the illegal alien a criminal). After all, better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open in and remove all doubt.
So is my cock.
Yep. Not even close. That's what she said!
I'm sure you were all over President Obama when he told his supporters to "get in the face" of others. To "bring a gun when they bring a knife". That those politically opposed to him should "shut up and get in the back of the bus". Right? I mean, that's all peace and lovey-dovey, right?
The most intolerant are those who demand others respect their own tolerance. And follow their rules about tolerance.
In other words, modern SJWs.
Not many people sit and stare at and tap on their wallet, or hold it to their ear. Unless that's some kind of fetish?
Which just goes to show, those who claim to be "liberal" and push the "social justice" nonsense are not liberal at all; they are hard-core authoritarians, fascists. Mel Brooks is as far from an SJW as one can be.