Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
!@#$%

shadowy corporate loopholes and tax shelters

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

 

300px-Wealth_of_Nations_title.jpg

 

or

 

The_Worldly_Philosophers_The_Lives_Times_And_Ideas_Of_The_Great_Economic_Thinkers-119189796123634.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

L

 

L

 

L

 

economic-warfare-r-t-naylor-paperback-cover-art.jpg

 

9780773537712.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!@#$%

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×