shadowy corporate loopholes and tax shelters

this is quite an article.

long but very interesting

Special Report: A Little House of Secrets on the Great Plains

by Kelly Carr and Brian Grow

Tuesday, June 28, 2011Reuters

At a single address in this sleepy city of 60,000 people, more than 2,000 companies are registered. The building, 2710 Thomes Avenue, isn't a shimmering skyscraper filled with A-list corporations. It's a 1,700-square-foot brick house with a manicured lawn, a few blocks from the State Capitol.

Neighbors say they see little activity there besides regular mail deliveries and a woman who steps outside for smoke breaks. Inside, however, the walls of the main room are covered floor to ceiling with numbered mailboxes labeled as corporate "suites." A bulky copy machine sits in the kitchen. In the living room, a woman in a headset answers calls and sorts bushels of mail.

A Reuters investigation has found the house at 2710 Thomes Avenue serves as a little Cayman Island on the Great Plains. It is the headquarters for Wyoming Corporate Services, a business-incorporation specialist that establishes firms which can be used as "shell" companies, paper entities able to hide assets.

Wyoming Corporate Services will help clients create a company, and more: set up a bank account for it; add a lawyer as a corporate director to invoke attorney-client privilege; even appoint stand-in directors and officers as high as CEO. Among its offerings is a variety of shell known as a "shelf" company, which comes with years of regulatory filings behind it, lending a greater feeling of solidity.

"A corporation is a legal person created by state statute that can be used as a fall guy, a servant, a good friend or a decoy," the company's website boasts. "A person you control... yet cannot be held accountable for its actions. Imagine the possibilities!"

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/113032/little-house-secrets-great-plains-reuters

I read that whole article earlier. I think it is horrible that corporate interests are able to hide so easily and states are willing to let them.

there are tax haven countries that are tiny, I cannot remember which one it is I keep think Lichenstein (spelt that wrong I'm sure) and there are more registered companies there than people.

I know people hate paying taxes, but companies that use these loopholes etc should be made a particular example of. I dont mind paying taxes because they fund some good things (also some bad but nothing is perfect).

It is another prime example to me, that you also could never trust a completely unregulated free market because greed will always come first and companies will put everything secondary to money.

exactly. anything less is naive, in my opinion

(not to mention, the US did that in the early 20th century/late 19th century and it was just one economic depression after another until the whole shit came crashing down and the whole system had to be revamped.)

it's disgusting to me too, that people don't seem to care. if the products are cheap to buy (even if they are cheaply made and shit quality) people wanna buy that shit

they don't care about the pollution or the sweatshops, or all the little ways we pay for those 'low prices'

people. suck. it.

.............

CIL, not surprised you read it! haha great minds ;)

I do not think it is because people are willing to only by cheap shit made in sweatshops. I think a overlooked part of the problem, is that developed countries cost too much to live in decently, so people must get paid more and that in turn raises the prices of products that are sold. It is a never ending cycle and is one of the reasons I do not like capitalism. Sooner or later in capitalism, thinks hit a peak with prices and cost of living that makes everything unsustainable. While this is happening, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I was really happy a few weeks ago when I read an article about companies that straight up pay their taxes and my bank/insurance company was the first one mentioned.

word, the good ones are rare though unfortunately.

hmm, not sure i agree with you there cil

a higher standard of living can be maintained if people take more share in the welfare of the public at large, in other words if there is a balance, a large middle class if you will.

i think socialist countries are still struggling with that balance, and some are doing a pretty decent job of it

don't get me wrong, i don't think cheap products are the only reason behind why corporations are allowed to get away with what they do, i just think it's a big part of it. and i do agree that capitalism is deeply flawed, opens and widens the chasm between rich and poor, and that system is fucking us.. no doubt.

On the 'cheap product' argument... this is the flip side of the Republican (and really it's a soundbyte so nearly nonpartisan) argument for a STRONG DOLLAR.

Tons of (mostly republican) politicians are lobbying against a weak dollar lately, because, who wants to be weak? That's how Islam usurps the Christian goals of our secular government, right... but...

The truth is, a 'weak dollar' promotes exports and American consumption of goods produced in the USA because it raises the relative price of imported goods. It also lowers the price of domestically produced exported goods and thereby increases profitability.

The same 'strong dollar' proponents would have us increase import tarriffs to 'offset the discrepancy'...which in turn inhibits trade and so it becomes less advantageous to buy domestic and ALSO raises the prices of imports.

Seriously, politicians are NOT economists.

I beg all 12oz'ers to gain a little insight into international trade and realize that when we can revitalize our exports of consumer goods we can minimize the export of American jobs.

i do completely admit my lack of hardcore knowledge relating to world economics... one of those areas i'd like to know more about, but i don't have a natural talent for it so i can't just sit down and learn quickly like i do with so much other stuff...

recommend a book?

(i detest the cultural war in the world right now btw, about being #1 and how fucking goddamn important it is, as though, HAHA we're the best, and to think, HAHA that we have nothing to learn from other cultures)

I think me and you have lot of the same thoughts on things.

word. :D

recommend a book?

I've been kicking this around for a few hours now and I just can't come up with anything. This is unusual because me and books are pretty famous in our association but... I got nothing.

As I recall Casek has been pretty hip on Keynesian theory in the past so maybe he has a suggestion.

My prescription would be an introspective view of your travels considering exchange rates, general welfare of the population, and import/export duties you may have been required to pay. Then you should strip any political influence from the study because, though politics may be the reason policies are enacted, politics really has very little to do with results. The end product is much more like the result of a chemical or mathematical equation. Once policy is set the outcomes are numerous but predictable. Most failed policy (imho) is a result of a lack of awareness concening all possible outcomes, much like a common math error is to ignore negative number sets that also balance...

I dunno, I feel like I've lost sight of what I was intending to say and anything else would be jargon or redundancy.

The only key I can offer is understanding the benefits of specialization, why it's better for the dairy farmer to just grow cows and the poultry farmer to grow chickens and then they trade, as opposed to them watering down their efforts and trying to be self-sufficient. If you produce a single product and trade that for other products you need produced by other 'specialists' then everyone's efforts become more focused, products become higher quality and everything else is bartering and haggling.

OK, I'm gonna quit now, I hope this helped in some way.

sure but i have to admit, my analytical mind has already been through a lot of that

and i do have a good command of the logistics and flow of goods, services and the means/manner in which they are produced, the global mortgage trade, commodities, the stock market, as well as the intricacies of how interconnected the global system has become

at this point i lack hardcore economic theory

i need something like this:

or

yeah, i was thinking i might need a textbook, but i don't want to read a fucking textbook.

i also know the micro/macro difference, i am a micro-lender.

the problem with that marxism, i think, is that stuff is strictly theoretical. really we've never had a chance to truly see communism in action.

thanks though. i'm sure you're right..

maybe i will download some podcasts.

word, no problemo.. it is good advise actually.. i mean i don't wanna read a textbook is just me being a little lazy. i guess i've reached that point.

you may be right about marxism in action; i don't know enough to argue that point

but true communism just hasn't existed, in my opinion. if you think it's because the very economic tenet on which it's built is flawed, i can accept it ..makes sense.. again though, i lack a degree of world historical knowledge required to discuss this stuff in depth.

I do not think it is because people are willing to only by cheap shit made in sweatshops. I think a overlooked part of the problem, is that developed countries cost too much to live in decently, so people must get paid more and that in turn raises the prices of products that are sold. It is a never ending cycle and is one of the reasons I do not like capitalism. Sooner or later in capitalism, thinks hit a peak with prices and cost of living that makes everything unsustainable. While this is happening, the rich get richer[/B] and the poor get poorer.

The rich get richer

The poor get the picture

The bombs never hit you when you're down so low

Some got pollution

Some revolution

There must be some solution but I just don't know

The bosses want decisions

The workers need ambitions

There won't be no collisions whey they move so slow

Nothing ever happens

Nothing ever matters

No one ever tells me so what am I to know

You wouldn't read about it

Read about it

Just another incredible scene

There's no doubt about it

Hammer and sickle

The news is at a trickle

The commisars are fickle but the stockpile grows

Bombers keeping coming

Engines softly humming

The stars and stripes are running for their own big show

Another little flare up

Storm brewed in a tea cup

Imagine any mix up and the lot would go

Nothing ever happens

Nothing ever matters

No one ever tells me so what I am to know

You wouldn't read about it

Read about it

One unjust, ridiculous steal

Ain't no doubt about it

You wouldn't read about it

Read about it

Just another particular deal

There's no doubt about it

-Midnight Oil

ok, i got it.

+1 for Road to Serfdom

well, our opinions clearly diverge there.

protecting a portion of the population unable to care for itself has benefits to the population at large that in my opinion, elevate it above a simple charitable impulse or desire to dole welfare.

i will definitely check out the books you recommend though

well, our opinions clearly diverge there.

protecting a portion of the population unable to care for itself has benefits to the population at large that in my opinion, elevate it above a simple charitable impulse or desire to dole welfare.

I think a large portion of the population has opinions about this that diverge. I am on the same side as you with it, but come across people on the exact opposite all the time. From what I have seen, Libertarians are usually on the opposite side. The seem to be ok with portions of the population being unable to care for themselves and are willing to write them off as a necessary cost of business.

I think a sign of a good society is the ability to take care of its lowest members.

In college I was a research analyst for this professor. BEST JOB EVER. i basically got paid to think up schemes to screw people over so that he could find loopholes to write about.

This is the book I did a lot of the research for (holler at me in the acknowledgments)

""From class struggle to crass struggle; that is the defining feature of the times. And the genius of today's political economy has been to convert what used to be a potential life-and-death conflict between haves and have-nots into a minor disagreement between have-lots and wanna-have-mores." Why do those who are extremely well off spend their money in socially and environmentally damaging ways? How do crooks, con artists, and counterfeiters function in the hypercharged markets catering to the whims and fancies of the very rich? And why do so many of the less fortunate insist on slavishly emulating the uber rich, spending way beyond what their limited means allow? A critique of the lifestyles of today's ultra rich bolstered by old-fashioned muckraking, Crass Struggle provides a sharp, original, and often humorous commentary on "the bad side of the good life, the underbelly of the potbelly." Taking the reader inside today's luxury trades, R.T. Naylor visits gold mines spewing arsenic and diamond fields spreading human misery, knocks on the doors of purveyors of luxury seafood as the oceans empty, samples wares of merchants offering top-vintage wines (or at least top-vintage labels), calls on companies running trophy-hunting expeditions and dealers in exotic pets high on endangered lists, and much more. What stands out is that so many high-priced items glitter on the outside, but have more than a spot of rot at the core. Through a series of outrageous but all too true stories, Crass Struggle reveals the appalling consequences of consumerism run amok and its links to repetitive financial swindles and the alarming degradation of the biophysical environment."

Yeah though, LLC's, client-attorney privilege (my personal favorite is to create multiple layers of lawyer-client privilege by creating an corporation with a lawyer as a trustee, who then is instructed to create another corporation with another lawyer for lawyer-client privilege squared. All sorts of wildness, I can talk for days about that shit.

I think a large portion of the population has opinions about this that diverge. I am on the same side as you with it, but come across people on the exact opposite all the time. From what I have seen, Libertarians are usually on the opposite side. The seem to be ok with portions of the population being unable to care for themselves and are willing to write them off as a necessary cost of business.

 

I think a sign of a good society is the ability to take care of its lowest members.

haha touche.

and really, i could not agree more! how people are alright with letting people fend for themselves (no matter how their problems affect their own lives or the community) without regard, is just reflective of our own decadence..

i even cornered a hardcore republican that had to admit, his own siblings were not motivated like him, to get rich or in the case of one, prosper. they relied on him for support in many ways.. i asked him who those siblings would turn to in his absence, and especially in the absence of government support, and he had no answer.

menino i would imagine you are well versed in the relative needs of people based on their location.

thanks for the books, love the excerpt there.. seems along the lines of what i'd really like to read. i'll have to check them out.

!@#$%

Read some of the opposing views of those books before you read them. Those books are decent, but the critics of some of them have very real valid points.

I think a large portion of the population has opinions about this that diverge. I am on the same side as you with it, but come across people on the exact opposite all the time. From what I have seen, Libertarians are usually on the opposite side. The seem to be ok with portions of the population being unable to care for themselves and are willing to write them off as a necessary cost of business.

 

I think a sign of a good society is the ability to take care of its lowest members.

it is disingenuous to say libertarians done want to take care of societies 'lowest' members.

what libertarians are against is robbing someone to give away their property in their name... charity, is a voluntary action, not a coercive action. if charity is forced, it is no charity at all. its great for society to 'take care' of its 'lowest' members, but it should be done on a voluntary basis.

and you also neglect the nature of the inefficiencies and dependent unintended consequences of the governments welfare state. when the government declared war on poverty, it essentially subsidized it which has resulted in poverty rates that have not changed since the 60's and to top it off, they keep changing the definition of what 'poverty' is. used to be you couldnt eat, now you are poverty stricken if you dont have a flat screen or cant go grocery shopping at whole foods. the nature of the system creates generations of people dependent on the system and taking away the incentive to provide for its self. it also has incentives to not be a part of a family unit, which is one of the major reasons for poverty in the first place.

the road to serfdom probably isnt the easiest reading economics text... so i'd recommend economics in one lesson by hazlitt to get a solid foundation in the subject.

They only want to do it through charity, what happens when there is not enough charity to take care of societies down and trodden?[/color]

what libertarians are against is robbing someone to give away their property in their name... charity, is a voluntary action, not a coercive action. if charity is forced, it is no charity at all. its great for society to 'take care' of its 'lowest' members, but it should be done on a voluntary basis. Why, because some people do not want to pay for it? This is the divergence we are talking about.

 

and you also neglect the nature of the inefficiencies and dependent unintended consequences of the governments welfare state. when the government declared war on poverty, it essentially subsidized it which has resulted in poverty rates that have not changed since the 60's and to top it off, they keep changing the definition of what 'poverty' is. used to be you couldnt eat, now you are poverty stricken if you dont have a flat screen or cant go grocery shopping at whole foods. the nature of the system creates generations of people dependent on the system and taking away the incentive to provide for its self. it also has incentives to not be a part of a family unit, which is one of the major reasons for poverty in the first place. Libertarian Rhetoric. Show me someplace that shows poverty means not having a flat screen TV. Government welfare state, give me a break with that bullshit. People like you act like motherfuckers purposely work to stay poor.

 

If it was up to you and Ron Paul fanatics, a large chunk of the poorest of Americans would be left to starve, unless someone was willing to give them some charity through the goodness of their hearts. You have proven exactly what I was saying above. There are people whose viewpoints diverge on this subject and libertarians are willing to write off a large part of the population as the cost of doing business.

 

the road to serfdom probably isnt the easiest reading economics text... so i'd recommend economics in one lesson by hazlitt to get a solid foundation in the subject.

BTW, the government taking care of people who need help is not suppose to be considered charity, it is the job of a responsible government.

All these people who think that if all government aide was taken away then society would step up and pay for the care of all the people who couldnt afford it clearly live in la la land. If no one had to pay anymore taxes you really think they will be donating their money to help the unemployed? help the homeless? some may give a small amount of change to make themselves feel better but there is no way in hell that there would be enough charity donations to support the current numbers of elderly, unemployed, infirm and ill (oh I forgot you already dont care for your ill in America so you can scratch that off the list).

Most people would spend the money they now arent paying in taxes on material shit for themselves.

How many people on 12oz do you think would give say 15-20% of their monthly salary away to help the poor and needy? I would say less than 5%

"They only want to do it through charity, what happens when there is not enough charity to take care of societies down and trodden?"

voluntary means. i routinely donate massive amounts of food and clothing every year to private charities, institutions and churches. my neighbors house burned down about a year and a half ago. i gave them a months worth of food and extra clothes. another neighbors' father was in a motorcycle accident, leaving a his mother at home with alzheimers with no one to watch her. he hired a care taker and this care taker was paid for almost solely by people from his church. i fixed the guy's truck for free when it broke down. believe it or not, voluntary cooperation works. in none of these situations did they need any big grants, big inefficient programs funded by theft or a bunch of big government.

voluntary organizations to deal with these problems tend to fix the problem with the key element, independence, being pushed. government programs are based on dependency and create more poverty. simple facts. when a private soup kitchen hands out food, they might have some strings attached. for example, they might not hand it out if the person is on drugs or drunk. it matters not for the government

"Libertarian Rhetoric. Show me someplace that shows poverty means not having a flat screen TV. Government welfare state, give me a break with that bullshit. People like you act like motherfuckers purposely work to stay poor. "

no need to get angry. they continually change the poverty standards. i'd assume they do this in order to show that there are more poor people in order to keep this system in tact. there is much at stake for everyone involved. look at all the industry/workers in the welfare system. not to mention the people who are DEPENDENT on it. why should they be rugged individualistic americans when it much easier to live off their fellow man? do you realize that there are actually people who attempt to SELL government welfare to people? they need to have as many people on it as possible because there is a vested interest in keeping people 'poor.' just like the military industrial complex and the politicians that support them have to continually have 'threats' in order to keep the arms money flowing. the poor vote in politicians who provide the most 'services' at taxpayer expense. the workers who provide these services want to keep their jobs. politicians want to stay in office. this is why poverty is not reduced.

whenever the government declares war on something, you get more of it. when it declared war on drugs, terror, illiteracy, sickness, unemployment, etc they get more of it.

being broke is a state of finances, being poor is a state of mind. hetty green considered herself 'poor' even though she had 200 million or so in her estate. many americans today, in effect consider themselves poor and take welfare hand outs. which is why you have the lottery winner in michigan on food stamps. people may not 'work' to stay poor, but the welfare state is DESIGNED to keep people dependent. for instance, why would they work for minimum wage when they could possibly figure out the welfare system in order to stay home and make more? another gleaming example is someone in my extended family. she has 2 kids, and her and her boyfriend purposefully will not get married in order for her to keep wic, food stamps, and state medical insurance. perhaps if she had to pay totally out of pocket, she would not of had 2 kids on the states dime. just this past weekend i heard her say they couldnt get married because she wants to go back to school and if she doesnt get married she'll get state money for tuition. need i mention that the guy makes around 100K a year, she drives an escalade, they have a couple ipads, iphones, and spend money like its going out of style? she buys 3 gallons of milk a week in order to keep the WIC flowing, and dumps out 2 down the drain. when the unemployed are on unemployment insurance for 2 years, the incentive is to not look for work for 2 years, screw around until right before the money ends and then they get a job. the stats on this are pretty much perfectly clear. it is my understanding 75% of the people drawing this money find work within the last month or few weeks of their payments ending, NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY RECEIVE PAYMENTS UP TILL THEN.

why do you feel the need to forcefully rob other people in order to fund your utopian goals? are you scared that if we didnt have a government using violence that YOU would not take care of 'societies lowest members?'

you cannot eliminate the welfare state over night, nor will it probably ever be dramatically scaled back or abolished because of people like you and because of the system its self. various people throughout history have said that when the public treasury becomes a public trough and when people, corporations, etc figure out they can vote themselves this money, the republic is done.

but lets say, just for shits and giggles that the welfare state was some how miraculously reduced to just caring for the wheel chair bound mentally handicapped person who no family. (a very small part of welfare recipients.) this would mean all the able bodied men/women would have to provide for themselves or starve. i'd imagine the welfare dependents would have a different outlook on life. the un married mother of 5 on welfare might all of a sudden kick the drug dealing 'father' out of the equation and get married to a person who has a life. while your goal of helping the down trodden is noble, it has to be done on a voluntary basis and it has to be done in a manner that does not keep the person dependent. apply the old adage of 'give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach him to fish, feed him for the rest of his life.'

All these people who think that if all government aide was taken away then society would step up and pay for the care of all the people who couldnt afford it clearly live in la la land. If no one had to pay anymore taxes you really think they will be donating their money to help the unemployed? help the homeless? some may give a small amount of change to make themselves feel better but there is no way in hell that there would be enough charity donations to support the current numbers of elderly, unemployed, infirm and ill (oh I forgot you already dont care for your ill in America so you can scratch that off the list).

 

Most people would spend the money they now arent paying in taxes on material shit for themselves.

 

How many people on 12oz do you think would give say 15-20% of their monthly salary away to help the poor and needy? I would say less than 5%

then why dont y'all put up or shut up?

why arent you giving more? why dont you lead by example? why not just sign your entire paycheck over to the local welfare office?

the main problem with the liberal rhetoric on this subject, is that they assume ALL the people on welfare, unemployed, etc are indeed truly incapable of providing for themselves. this is simply not the case. the actual number of truly destitute individuals is probably under 20% of those receiving state handouts. the liberal rhetoric also neglects to realize that this subsidization of poverty gives you more poverty. its basic economics. when you subsidize something/declare 'war' on it, you get more of it.

there was a write up in the paper where i used to live not to long ago about urban hipsters/yuppies on food stamps. yes, yuppies on food stamps. and what were they buying with it all? they were going to farmers markets to buy expensive food. i know of to many people to count who draw unemployment so they can travel or hop trains. i know of plenty of 'anarchists' who eat out of dumpsters, yet sell their food stamps/exchange independence card funds for cash in order to buy alcohol, camera equipment, etc.

until you can separate the truly needy with the people who are simply using the system to their advantage, you are simply operating on hysterics and emotions and not dealing with the actual issue at hand. it is clouded by phony numbers, arbitrary and changeable poverty lines and a firm reliance on anti capitalist rhetoric.

because at the moment I am benefitting from the system that I have paid my taxes into for many years, I lost my job my wife was made redundant. We have made every cutback we can but I dont see anyone looking to help us so I have to sign on and get help from the government.

I check the job markets every single day, I go out looking for work, there aren't jobs so how am I supposed to keep a roof over my head, I dont have any family to fall back on.

While you may give to charity AOD the VAST majority of people don't, and telling me to put up or shut up is just a fucking joke, I paid the taxes my whole life I have put up and everyone should have to because it does help rather than the blind utopia that you seem to have were business runs rampant and everyone is left by the wayside if for some reason they are made redundant, because not one person will help them.

You always talk about the blindness of the liberal approach while completely not seeing the blind ridiculousness off your viewpoint, it has no baring in reality.

b

 

You always talk about the blindness of the liberal approach while completely not seeing the blind ridiculousness off your viewpoint, it has no baring in reality.

claiming my view point is 'ridiculous' is just another way of saying that i disagree with both hilary clinton and john mccain.

i understand your plight. i was in the same situation. thankfully, since i am a firm believer in self reliance, i have saved every penny i could my entire life. and when the worst happened, i was prepared. i live so simply, if my income was cut in half, i probably wouldnt even notice, except my savings rate would drop like a rock. i have enough food to last 8 months or more and enough fuel to heat my house and cook for a couple years. i have enough savings to pay my bills for 2 years. and since i am a believer in capitalism, i have alternate income streams. the most important thing someone can do for survival in these situations is to have alternate income streams.

i would argue for you to start your own business, but im sure this would be impossible in the UK due to the insane amount of regulations you favor which make it impossible for little companies to compete with the big boys.