In the past higher and higher marginal tax rates on both income and capital gains did the job of encouraging investment just fine. No reason to re-invent the wheel here, raise taxes on the hyper-wealthy, use a bit of that new income to beef up enforcement.
Its the political will/popular suppoer that's lacking, not an understanding of how to move the economy.
This is one of the biggest problems with enforcement of our existing tax laws. You can't just up income and capital gains rates because the billionaires will use complex corporate and trust entities to hide everything. We really need new laws to be able to cut through that. Back during Obama's first term, the IRS set up a special unit to take on billionaires. It completely failed. https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits
In the past higher and higher marginal tax rates on both income and capital gains did the job of encouraging investment just fine. No reason to re-invent the wheel here, raise taxes on the hyper-wealthy, use a bit of that new income to beef up enforcement.
Its the political will/popular suppoer that's lacking, not an understanding of how to move the economy.
This is one of the biggest problems with enforcement of our existing tax laws. You can't just up income and capital gains rates because the billionaires will use complex corporate and trust entities to hide everything. We really need new laws to be able to cut through that. Back during Obama's first term, the IRS set up a special unit to take on billionaires. It completely failed. https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits
We would need international cooperation the likes of which has never been achieved at any point in history to stop the current class of borderless billionaires from engineering a web of holding companies to squirrel wealth away in international tax havens.
In the past higher and higher marginal tax rates on both income and capital gains did the job of encouraging investment just fine. No reason to re-invent the wheel here, raise taxes on the hyper-wealthy, use a bit of that new income to beef up enforcement.
Its the political will/popular suppoer that's lacking, not an understanding of how to move the economy.
This is one of the biggest problems with enforcement of our existing tax laws. You can't just up income and capital gains rates because the billionaires will use complex corporate and trust entities to hide everything. We really need new laws to be able to cut through that. Back during Obama's first term, the IRS set up a special unit to take on billionaires. It completely failed. https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits
We would need international cooperation the likes of which has never been achieved at any point in history to stop the current class of borderless billionaires from engineering a web of holding companies to squirrel wealth away in international tax havens.
If only the world wasn’t ruled by nationalist billionaire politicians who use jingoistic hate of other countries to absorb blame for their failures and fill their bloated coffers.
Xi Jinping: $1.5 billion
Donald Trump: $2.4 billion
Vladimir Putin: Hidden, but possibly up to $200 billion.
In the past higher and higher marginal tax rates on both income and capital gains did the job of encouraging investment just fine. No reason to re-invent the wheel here, raise taxes on the hyper-wealthy, use a bit of that new income to beef up enforcement.
Its the political will/popular suppoer that's lacking, not an understanding of how to move the economy.
This is one of the biggest problems with enforcement of our existing tax laws. You can't just up income and capital gains rates because the billionaires will use complex corporate and trust entities to hide everything. We really need new laws to be able to cut through that. Back during Obama's first term, the IRS set up a special unit to take on billionaires. It completely failed. https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits
We would need international cooperation the likes of which has never been achieved at any point in history to stop the current class of borderless billionaires from engineering a web of holding companies to squirrel wealth away in international tax havens.
If only the world wasn’t ruled by nationalist billionaire politicians who use jingoistic hate of other countries to absorb blame for their failures and fill their bloated coffers.
Xi Jinping: $1.5 billion Donald Trump: $2.4 billion
Vladimir Putin: Hidden, but possibly up to $200 billion.
Facts not in evidence.
Always liked the theory that he's actually worth negative dollars, and that he's just living on borrowed money. And that, rather than the sources of income being sketchy, or there being fradulence in his tax returns, is why he's so resistant to revealing them.
Don't put much stock in that, but must admit the idea that I'm richer than Trump (and I ain't rich) is really quite entertaining.
In the past higher and higher marginal tax rates on both income and capital gains did the job of encouraging investment just fine. No reason to re-invent the wheel here, raise taxes on the hyper-wealthy, use a bit of that new income to beef up enforcement.
Its the political will/popular suppoer that's lacking, not an understanding of how to move the economy.
This is one of the biggest problems with enforcement of our existing tax laws. You can't just up income and capital gains rates because the billionaires will use complex corporate and trust entities to hide everything. We really need new laws to be able to cut through that. Back during Obama's first term, the IRS set up a special unit to take on billionaires. It completely failed. https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits
We would need international cooperation the likes of which has never been achieved at any point in history to stop the current class of borderless billionaires from engineering a web of holding companies to squirrel wealth away in international tax havens.
I've wondered about this. What sort of international treaties would be necessary for nation-states to better control capital and avoid the tax haven problem?
In the past higher and higher marginal tax rates on both income and capital gains did the job of encouraging investment just fine. No reason to re-invent the wheel here, raise taxes on the hyper-wealthy, use a bit of that new income to beef up enforcement.
Its the political will/popular suppoer that's lacking, not an understanding of how to move the economy.
This is one of the biggest problems with enforcement of our existing tax laws. You can't just up income and capital gains rates because the billionaires will use complex corporate and trust entities to hide everything. We really need new laws to be able to cut through that. Back during Obama's first term, the IRS set up a special unit to take on billionaires. It completely failed. https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits
We would need international cooperation the likes of which has never been achieved at any point in history to stop the current class of borderless billionaires from engineering a web of holding companies to squirrel wealth away in international tax havens.
I've wondered about this. What sort of international treaties would be necessary for nation-states to better control capital and avoid the tax haven problem?
Well first you would have to explain why you get to tax these "borderless billionaires" in the first place and then why the rest of the world should care whether you can or can't
In the past higher and higher marginal tax rates on both income and capital gains did the job of encouraging investment just fine. No reason to re-invent the wheel here, raise taxes on the hyper-wealthy, use a bit of that new income to beef up enforcement.
Its the political will/popular suppoer that's lacking, not an understanding of how to move the economy.
This is one of the biggest problems with enforcement of our existing tax laws. You can't just up income and capital gains rates because the billionaires will use complex corporate and trust entities to hide everything. We really need new laws to be able to cut through that. Back during Obama's first term, the IRS set up a special unit to take on billionaires. It completely failed. https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits
We would need international cooperation the likes of which has never been achieved at any point in history to stop the current class of borderless billionaires from engineering a web of holding companies to squirrel wealth away in international tax havens.
I've wondered about this. What sort of international treaties would be necessary for nation-states to better control capital and avoid the tax haven problem?
When the billionaire puts 80% of their assets in a trust in the Cayman islands you need the cooperation of the Cayman government to unravel the tangled web of corporate shells and trusts to figure out who actually owns what and how to connect that in a court case. Convincing the Cayman government, whom makes a significant portion of their governmental revenues from facilitating these billionaires, to fork over the paperwork is difficult to say the least.
In the past higher and higher marginal tax rates on both income and capital gains did the job of encouraging investment just fine. No reason to re-invent the wheel here, raise taxes on the hyper-wealthy, use a bit of that new income to beef up enforcement.
Its the political will/popular suppoer that's lacking, not an understanding of how to move the economy.
This is one of the biggest problems with enforcement of our existing tax laws. You can't just up income and capital gains rates because the billionaires will use complex corporate and trust entities to hide everything. We really need new laws to be able to cut through that. Back during Obama's first term, the IRS set up a special unit to take on billionaires. It completely failed. https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits
We would need international cooperation the likes of which has never been achieved at any point in history to stop the current class of borderless billionaires from engineering a web of holding companies to squirrel wealth away in international tax havens.
I've wondered about this. What sort of international treaties would be necessary for nation-states to better control capital and avoid the tax haven problem?
When the billionaire puts 80% of their assets in a trust in the Cayman islands you need the cooperation of the Cayman government to unravel the tangled web of corporate shells and trusts to figure out who actually owns what and how to connect that in a court case. Convincing the Cayman government, whom makes a significant portion of their governmental revenues from facilitating these billionaires, to fork over the paperwork is difficult to say the least.
And it's not like we have a great track record trying to push around Delaware. Who are already part of the country to begin with.
In the past higher and higher marginal tax rates on both income and capital gains did the job of encouraging investment just fine. No reason to re-invent the wheel here, raise taxes on the hyper-wealthy, use a bit of that new income to beef up enforcement.
Its the political will/popular suppoer that's lacking, not an understanding of how to move the economy.
This is one of the biggest problems with enforcement of our existing tax laws. You can't just up income and capital gains rates because the billionaires will use complex corporate and trust entities to hide everything. We really need new laws to be able to cut through that. Back during Obama's first term, the IRS set up a special unit to take on billionaires. It completely failed. https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits
We would need international cooperation the likes of which has never been achieved at any point in history to stop the current class of borderless billionaires from engineering a web of holding companies to squirrel wealth away in international tax havens.
I've wondered about this. What sort of international treaties would be necessary for nation-states to better control capital and avoid the tax haven problem?
When the billionaire puts 80% of their assets in a trust in the Cayman islands you need the cooperation of the Cayman government to unravel the tangled web of corporate shells and trusts to figure out who actually owns what and how to connect that in a court case. Convincing the Cayman government, whom makes a significant portion of their governmental revenues from facilitating these billionaires, to fork over the paperwork is difficult to say the least.
And it's not like we have a great track record trying to push around Delaware. Who are already part of the country to begin with.
Delaware at least you can subpoena shit.
The Caymans maybe we should just sanction or something. There ARE ways to pressure places, and it's not like anyone doubts they're aiding and abetting tax evasion and worse.
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The problem I have with borderless billionaires and the focus on them is that it makes it much more difficult to accomplish the presumed goal of redistribution. Taxation alone does not make for redistribution or equity, it's what the government does with the revenue. What I've read a lot of, and what most public economists agree on, is a consumption tax system that allows the government to raise an extensive amount of revenue to pay for a very large welfare state without imposing an extremely large onus on any one group of taxpayers or goods/services (like the wealth tax from Warren does). That way you're not incenting or discouraging any particular economic activity, except for maybe those with positive/negative externalities, so you've got minimal economic inefficiency but still redistributing for equity. Having differential taxes on groups/goods creates more political groups to lobby for/against taxes and so a broad base low rate system attempts to minimize that problem.
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
They are real countries though. Like what are you going to do, annex the entire Carribean and then the little city-states in Europe?
not to mention that this whole topic feels a bit like a bunch of sheep agreeing that Something Should Be Done about the wolf, and floating ideas that all start with a fairy godmother waving a magic wand.
not to mention that this whole topic feels a bit like a bunch of sheep agreeing that Something Should Be Done about the wolf, and floating ideas that all start with a fairy godmother waving a magic wand.
That's a big part of why wealth taxation is problematic in my view. For it to be successful you've got to 1) get the political will to pass it (may be possible) AND 2) deal with the vast tax avoidance/evasion problems that will exceedingly crop up.
Or I guess the ruling and capital classes can keep pretending like nothing's wrong and they don't owe their share, and eventually the guillotines will get wheeled out for them.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Or I guess the ruling and capital classes can keep pretending like nothing's wrong and they don't owe their share, and eventually the guillotines will get wheeled out for them.
Broad base and low rate tax systems can do something by raising significantly more revenue with less impact to each individual taxpayer and enable much greater redistribution on the expenditure side.
Or I guess the ruling and capital classes can keep pretending like nothing's wrong and they don't owe their share, and eventually the guillotines will get wheeled out for them.
Broad base and low rate tax systems can do something by raising significantly more revenue with less impact to each individual taxpayer and enable much greater redistribution on the expenditure side.
I mean... isn't the US already a broad base with a low tax rate?
The problem with your European style medium-high consumption taxes+welfare state is it still lets rich get get richer. The system is inherently unjust.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Or I guess the ruling and capital classes can keep pretending like nothing's wrong and they don't owe their share, and eventually the guillotines will get wheeled out for them.
Broad base and low rate tax systems can do something by raising significantly more revenue with less impact to each individual taxpayer and enable much greater redistribution on the expenditure side.
In my lifetime broadening the base of taxpayers just means taxing the poor and middle classes more and taxing the rich proportionately less. If that’s incorrect can you give an example of what you mean?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
I want you to consider how liberal you think your policy preferences are when you make these arguments.
Or I guess the ruling and capital classes can keep pretending like nothing's wrong and they don't owe their share, and eventually the guillotines will get wheeled out for them.
So your solution is to set the precedent that a larger state with a larger military can just unilaterally invade and annex a smaller state because they don't like the domestic policy of that smaller state. Part of Liberal Internationalism is creating a favorable, to western liberal democracy, world order. As soon as the US invades and annexes the Cayman Islands, say goodbye to Taiwan within five minutes of that making the international news cycle.
Or I guess the ruling and capital classes can keep pretending like nothing's wrong and they don't owe their share, and eventually the guillotines will get wheeled out for them.
Broad base and low rate tax systems can do something by raising significantly more revenue with less impact to each individual taxpayer and enable much greater redistribution on the expenditure side.
I mean... isn't the US already a broad base with a low tax rate?
The problem with your European style medium-high consumption taxes+welfare state is it still lets rich get get richer. The system is inherently unjust.
Not really. The federal income tax is relatively close to it, but generally broad base+low rates is more akin to the sales tax or the VAT and combined against services as well as goods.
Or I guess the ruling and capital classes can keep pretending like nothing's wrong and they don't owe their share, and eventually the guillotines will get wheeled out for them.
Broad base and low rate tax systems can do something by raising significantly more revenue with less impact to each individual taxpayer and enable much greater redistribution on the expenditure side.
In my lifetime broadening the base of taxpayers just means taxing the poor and middle classes more and taxing the rich proportionately less. If that’s incorrect can you give an example of what you mean?
Sure, that's a way to look at it. But, if you increase the redistribution then the poor and middle classes get significantly more income back than they do now.
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
I want you to consider how liberal you think your policy preferences are when you make these arguments.
I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about the precious sovereignty of *checks notes* the Principality of Monaco
This tax havens aren't, in fact, real counties. They're polite fictions that are allowed to exist because the ruling classes are quite content to let themselves off of the hook.
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Or I guess the ruling and capital classes can keep pretending like nothing's wrong and they don't owe their share, and eventually the guillotines will get wheeled out for them.
Broad base and low rate tax systems can do something by raising significantly more revenue with less impact to each individual taxpayer and enable much greater redistribution on the expenditure side.
I mean... isn't the US already a broad base with a low tax rate?
The problem with your European style medium-high consumption taxes+welfare state is it still lets rich get get richer. The system is inherently unjust.
I would also contend that, while "inherently unjust" those systems provide a better quality of life than what our current system does while also being potentially easier to get through our political environment.
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
I want you to consider how liberal you think your policy preferences are when you make these arguments.
I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about the precious sovereignty of *checks notes* the Principality of Monaco
This tax havens aren't, in fact, real counties. They're polite fictions that are allowed to exist because the ruling classes are quite content to let themselves off of the hook.
Your argument applies to literally every country in the world.
This is some interesting liberal "might makes right". Personally, I don't find it at all unusual and I am only surprised that the mask fell off so quickly.
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
I want you to consider how liberal you think your policy preferences are when you make these arguments.
I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about the precious sovereignty of *checks notes* the Principality of Monaco
This tax havens aren't, in fact, real counties. They're polite fictions that are allowed to exist because the ruling classes are quite content to let themselves off of the hook.
Weren't people really unhappy that Bush senior invaded Panama? Weren't most people on the left especially pissed about that?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
I want you to consider how liberal you think your policy preferences are when you make these arguments.
I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about the precious sovereignty of *checks notes* the Principality of Monaco
This tax havens aren't, in fact, real counties. They're polite fictions that are allowed to exist because the ruling classes are quite content to let themselves off of the hook.
Weren't people really unhappy that Bush senior invaded Panama? Weren't most people on the left especially pissed about that?
That was 30 years ago. Im not sure why vowels is answerable for some perceived hypocrisy here as he was likely focusing his energy on learning to tie his shoes at the time.
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
I want you to consider how liberal you think your policy preferences are when you make these arguments.
I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about the precious sovereignty of *checks notes* the Principality of Monaco
This tax havens aren't, in fact, real counties. They're polite fictions that are allowed to exist because the ruling classes are quite content to let themselves off of the hook.
Ah but you can't stop there. What about Luxembourg? Founding member of NATO, EU member, tax haven. The Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland also considered tax havens
It is the height of imperialism to decide who gets to be a "real country" based on how their laws interact with yours
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
I want you to consider how liberal you think your policy preferences are when you make these arguments.
I'm not suggesting it's a good idea or moral (obviously not) but just saying it's not some new idea that has never happened before. We can see it happening in the present day. Hong Kong springs to mind for some reason.
There are reasons why they shouldn’t do it, but the reasons they haven’t done it yet have nothing to do with morality or respecting sovereignty.
The reason the foreign policy establishment Washington Consensus is that it would be a bad idea generally is that it is easier to build a favorable world order, through the lens of liberal internationalism, if the general consensus of the global community is that invading and annexing a state because you don't like their domestic policies e.g. their tax code is bad.
Even through a cynical lens, this makes sense because even hard power is not infinite and omnipresent. Even if you want to argue that the Liberal Internationalist strategy of the US is imperialist it still makes sense for an imperialist power using the guise of western liberal democratic norms and global institutions to solidify global power selfishly to not want to set the norm that anyone can invade anyone else for any reason without at least the excuse that the state being invaded poses an imminent threat.
But that doesn't matter beyond the academic discussion because you can never truly discern whether an actor espousing an ideological motivation for an action is a true believer or not. The effect of the action is the same whether they are a true believer or a cynic.
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
I want you to consider how liberal you think your policy preferences are when you make these arguments.
I'm not suggesting it's a good idea or moral (obviously not) but just saying it's not some new idea that has never happened before. We can see it happening in the present day. Hong Kong springs to mind for some reason.
Hong Kong is part of China. It was always going to revert at the end of the lease
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
Frankly, the bullshit tax haven "countries" need to go.
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
I want you to consider how liberal you think your policy preferences are when you make these arguments.
I'm not suggesting it's a good idea or moral (obviously not) but just saying it's not some new idea that has never happened before. We can see it happening in the present day. Hong Kong springs to mind for some reason.
Hong Kong went from part of China to a British Colony back to China with stipulations that China is reneging on. It was never considered a sovereign state during any of those periods.
Posts
This is one of the biggest problems with enforcement of our existing tax laws. You can't just up income and capital gains rates because the billionaires will use complex corporate and trust entities to hide everything. We really need new laws to be able to cut through that. Back during Obama's first term, the IRS set up a special unit to take on billionaires. It completely failed. https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-service-global-high-wealth-audits
And the effective was in the 60%-70% which still allowed for many millionaires and for them to pass it down the generations.
Yes, the estate tax should also be higher.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
We would need international cooperation the likes of which has never been achieved at any point in history to stop the current class of borderless billionaires from engineering a web of holding companies to squirrel wealth away in international tax havens.
NNID: Hakkekage
If only the world wasn’t ruled by nationalist billionaire politicians who use jingoistic hate of other countries to absorb blame for their failures and fill their bloated coffers.
Xi Jinping: $1.5 billion
Donald Trump: $2.4 billion
Vladimir Putin: Hidden, but possibly up to $200 billion.
Facts not in evidence.
Always liked the theory that he's actually worth negative dollars, and that he's just living on borrowed money. And that, rather than the sources of income being sketchy, or there being fradulence in his tax returns, is why he's so resistant to revealing them.
Don't put much stock in that, but must admit the idea that I'm richer than Trump (and I ain't rich) is really quite entertaining.
Well first you would have to explain why you get to tax these "borderless billionaires" in the first place and then why the rest of the world should care whether you can or can't
When the billionaire puts 80% of their assets in a trust in the Cayman islands you need the cooperation of the Cayman government to unravel the tangled web of corporate shells and trusts to figure out who actually owns what and how to connect that in a court case. Convincing the Cayman government, whom makes a significant portion of their governmental revenues from facilitating these billionaires, to fork over the paperwork is difficult to say the least.
And it's not like we have a great track record trying to push around Delaware. Who are already part of the country to begin with.
Delaware at least you can subpoena shit.
The Caymans maybe we should just sanction or something. There ARE ways to pressure places, and it's not like anyone doubts they're aiding and abetting tax evasion and worse.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It depressing to consider how much of America's resources have been spent making sure communist and Islamic counties didn't get too powerful when that really did shit-all to improve our country.
That soft power (and hard power) would be better spent telling the Caymans and Monaco and whoever else that they aren't real counties and don't get to hide shit anymore.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Say goodbye to the entire concept of sovereignty.
You're the United States of America. Since when has this mattered?
The whole of human history involves a lot of big places annexing small places.
They are real countries though. Like what are you going to do, annex the entire Carribean and then the little city-states in Europe?
That's a big part of why wealth taxation is problematic in my view. For it to be successful you've got to 1) get the political will to pass it (may be possible) AND 2) deal with the vast tax avoidance/evasion problems that will exceedingly crop up.
Or I guess the ruling and capital classes can keep pretending like nothing's wrong and they don't owe their share, and eventually the guillotines will get wheeled out for them.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Broad base and low rate tax systems can do something by raising significantly more revenue with less impact to each individual taxpayer and enable much greater redistribution on the expenditure side.
I mean... isn't the US already a broad base with a low tax rate?
The problem with your European style medium-high consumption taxes+welfare state is it still lets rich get get richer. The system is inherently unjust.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
In my lifetime broadening the base of taxpayers just means taxing the poor and middle classes more and taxing the rich proportionately less. If that’s incorrect can you give an example of what you mean?
I want you to consider how liberal you think your policy preferences are when you make these arguments.
So your solution is to set the precedent that a larger state with a larger military can just unilaterally invade and annex a smaller state because they don't like the domestic policy of that smaller state. Part of Liberal Internationalism is creating a favorable, to western liberal democracy, world order. As soon as the US invades and annexes the Cayman Islands, say goodbye to Taiwan within five minutes of that making the international news cycle.
Not really. The federal income tax is relatively close to it, but generally broad base+low rates is more akin to the sales tax or the VAT and combined against services as well as goods.
Sure, that's a way to look at it. But, if you increase the redistribution then the poor and middle classes get significantly more income back than they do now.
I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about the precious sovereignty of *checks notes* the Principality of Monaco
This tax havens aren't, in fact, real counties. They're polite fictions that are allowed to exist because the ruling classes are quite content to let themselves off of the hook.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I would also contend that, while "inherently unjust" those systems provide a better quality of life than what our current system does while also being potentially easier to get through our political environment.
Your argument applies to literally every country in the world.
This is some interesting liberal "might makes right". Personally, I don't find it at all unusual and I am only surprised that the mask fell off so quickly.
Weren't people really unhappy that Bush senior invaded Panama? Weren't most people on the left especially pissed about that?
That was 30 years ago. Im not sure why vowels is answerable for some perceived hypocrisy here as he was likely focusing his energy on learning to tie his shoes at the time.
Ah but you can't stop there. What about Luxembourg? Founding member of NATO, EU member, tax haven. The Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland also considered tax havens
It is the height of imperialism to decide who gets to be a "real country" based on how their laws interact with yours
I'm not suggesting it's a good idea or moral (obviously not) but just saying it's not some new idea that has never happened before. We can see it happening in the present day. Hong Kong springs to mind for some reason.
The reason the foreign policy establishment Washington Consensus is that it would be a bad idea generally is that it is easier to build a favorable world order, through the lens of liberal internationalism, if the general consensus of the global community is that invading and annexing a state because you don't like their domestic policies e.g. their tax code is bad.
Even through a cynical lens, this makes sense because even hard power is not infinite and omnipresent. Even if you want to argue that the Liberal Internationalist strategy of the US is imperialist it still makes sense for an imperialist power using the guise of western liberal democratic norms and global institutions to solidify global power selfishly to not want to set the norm that anyone can invade anyone else for any reason without at least the excuse that the state being invaded poses an imminent threat.
But that doesn't matter beyond the academic discussion because you can never truly discern whether an actor espousing an ideological motivation for an action is a true believer or not. The effect of the action is the same whether they are a true believer or a cynic.
Hong Kong is part of China. It was always going to revert at the end of the lease
New thread.
Hong Kong went from part of China to a British Colony back to China with stipulations that China is reneging on. It was never considered a sovereign state during any of those periods.
A number of chicken executives have been indicted for price fixing
Considering how they've been treating the farmers raising chicks, this shouldn't come as a surprise.