So, is the strategy

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #324,358 by mhuber 4/10/10 4:24:29 AM Reply	So, is the strategy reducing the tax rates to match the havens? Because that just won't work. There have to be countries with infrastructures. Tax havens are typically little places that can't actually support those who live there on paper. Maybe they can support the individual robber baron, but they can't support the workforce that makes the robber baron's wealth possible, and they certainly can't support the consumer base that makes the robber baron's company viable. The perfect tax haven would be something like what CyberYugoslavia will be if they ever get their 20 square meters and UN recognition. No expenses but server space. There is no way a non-virtual country can compete. --------------------------------------- Why, yes, I did give up something for lent. I gave up making sense.
Post #324,381 by beepster 4/10/10 2:33:36 PM Reply	No, the strategy should be.. ..to back off on tax rate combined with a more comprehensive set of regulation regarding transfer pricing. For example, the MS tactic of licensing their own software from oversees entities should be taxed differently. So it should be a combination of disincenting the creation of more havens and being as creative with the tax code as they accountants are creative in building these schemes in the first place. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #324,388 by drook 4/10/10 2:58:55 PM Reply	"Creativity" is always the wrong answer Tax law and its application should be simplified. If someone gets "creative" to circumvent the intent of the law, they should be punished accordingly. You have noticed that it's all the "creative" stuff that has crashed, right? PS: I left "punished" in there as a freebie. -- Drew

Almost half on the free ride plan - (beepster) - (44) - April 7, 2010, 05:00:41 PM EDT

Heh. Make that nearly 2/3. - (Another Scott) - (39) - April 7, 2010, 05:27:54 PM EDT

So why aren't we... - (beepster) - (38) - April 7, 2010, 05:48:14 PM EDT

Who's we? - (Another Scott) - (37) - April 7, 2010, 06:34:48 PM EDT

@00k peanuts depending on where you live - (boxley) - (36) - April 7, 2010, 07:44:48 PM EDT

Top 2-3% says otherwise. - (Another Scott) - (35) - April 7, 2010, 09:26:34 PM EDT

Tell them to pay some - (beepster) - (34) - April 8, 2010, 12:12:12 AM EDT

If you're in the top 2-3%, what are you? "Middle class"??? - (Another Scott) - (32) - April 8, 2010, 07:57:25 AM EDT

Re: If you're in the top 2-3%, what are you? "Middle class" - (folkert) - April 8, 2010, 09:10:48 AM EDT

In NYC...pretty much. - (beepster) - (30) - April 8, 2010, 12:03:52 PM EDT

WOT - (jbrabeck) - (2) - April 8, 2010, 12:23:14 PM EDT

:-) -NT - (Another Scott) - April 8, 2010, 12:29:10 PM EDT

NYC, not SLC ;-) -NT - (beepster) - April 8, 2010, 12:29:13 PM EDT

Only if you twist the words to mean something else. - (Another Scott) - (25) - April 8, 2010, 12:28:51 PM EDT

These terms define a standard of living - (beepster) - (24) - April 8, 2010, 12:31:16 PM EDT

And so are the opportunities - (crazy) - (23) - April 8, 2010, 01:02:12 PM EDT

So you think the folks in Brooklyn or the Bronx are making.. - (beepster) - (22) - April 8, 2010, 01:37:30 PM EDT

Huh? - (crazy) - (21) - April 8, 2010, 01:58:46 PM EDT

What I'm saying - (beepster) - (20) - April 8, 2010, 03:59:26 PM EDT

The tax in question is an *income* tax. - (Another Scott) - April 8, 2010, 05:02:37 PM EDT

Curious - (drook) - (18) - April 9, 2010, 01:08:12 AM EDT

Yup - (crazy) - (17) - April 9, 2010, 07:16:43 AM EDT

Missing point of the article, aren't you. - (beepster) - (16) - April 9, 2010, 11:10:48 AM EDT

AKA - "The way to Utopia is via a race to the bottom." :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (1) - April 9, 2010, 12:46:17 PM EDT

Hardly - (beepster) - April 9, 2010, 01:22:16 PM EDT

You argue tactics while assaulting our motives - (drook) - (7) - April 9, 2010, 03:52:12 PM EDT

How is it that you "know" this.. - (beepster) - (6) - April 9, 2010, 05:47:28 PM EDT

That's not the argument I'm making - (drook) - April 9, 2010, 09:27:39 PM EDT

The Laffer curve is not linear - (mhuber) - (4) - April 10, 2010, 04:05:14 AM EDT

No duh - (beepster) - (3) - April 10, 2010, 02:36:41 PM EDT

Look at your own argument - (drook) - (2) - April 10, 2010, 02:55:39 PM EDT

each person - (beepster) - (1) - April 10, 2010, 03:12:20 PM EDT

What was your point then? - (drook) - April 10, 2010, 03:34:22 PM EDT

So, is the strategy - (mhuber) - (2) - April 10, 2010, 04:24:29 AM EDT

No, the strategy should be.. - (beepster) - (1) - April 10, 2010, 02:33:36 PM EDT

"Creativity" is always the wrong answer - (drook) - April 10, 2010, 02:58:55 PM EDT

1.5% sound about right? - (Another Scott) - (2) - April 10, 2010, 07:15:04 AM EDT

Apples and Oranges - (beepster) - (1) - April 10, 2010, 02:40:59 PM EDT

That's just one example. - (Another Scott) - April 10, 2010, 03:47:13 PM EDT

I've used the same example - (crazy) - April 8, 2010, 12:55:04 PM EDT

That's the problem beep - (jake123) - April 8, 2010, 01:24:11 PM EDT

Re: Almost half on the free ride plan - (malraux) - (3) - April 7, 2010, 06:14:20 PM EDT

Thanks for the pointer. -NT - (Another Scott) - April 7, 2010, 06:36:28 PM EDT

he's missing a key point... - (beepster) - (1) - April 8, 2010, 12:18:36 AM EDT

The rest of the first world - (jake123) - April 8, 2010, 01:27:37 PM EDT

[C:\]_
62 ms