Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

How Tax Cheats Are Using Your Money to Fund Republicans

By Lucy Komisar, AlterNet. Posted April 17, 2007.


When it comes to tax cheats, the government has been vocal about catching the little guys but hasn't focused on the big-time frauds, like Swift Boat financier Sam Wyly, who happens to be a top-tier Republican contributor.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Lucy Komisar

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Every year, just before Tax Day, the Internal Revenue Service conducts a dog and pony show to demonstrate how it is cracking down on tax cheats.

Routinely, the IRS focuses on stories that involve crooked tax preparers and small-time taxpayers who try to erase a few hundred and occasionally even a few thousand dollars from their bills.

This year was no exception. At a press conference on April 3, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson announced civil injunction suits against five corporations in Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago and Raleigh that are franchises of Jackson-Hewitt, the nation's second-largest tax preparation firm, which the IRS accused of routinely faking returns for some of its 100,000 clients.

Jackson-Hewitt is a quickie, low-fee operation. The IRS says stores accepted false W-2s and faked data to get clients the earned-income credit for the poor. The amount underpaid through returns prepared by 125 stores was estimated at $70 million.

While the story made national headlines, the government targeted an operation that catered to little guys, the poor and lower middle class. However, they failed to focus on some big-time tax cheats whose fraud was much greater, but who happen to be top-tier Republican contributors. What the press conference should have announced was: "Swift Boat" financier Sam Wyly cheated the U.S. of at least $300 million in taxes." And, "The money that paid for the "Swift Boat" campaign was your money!"

How does someone cheat the government out of that much money and -- until now -- get away with it?

Megabucks Sam didn't pull into a mall with a Jackson-Hewitt franchise store. He had expensive help from his bankers and accountants. The scam is detailed in a report issued Aug. 1 by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, the result of a lengthy probe by the staff of Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Everson knows about it because he testified at the hearing that presented the report.

Wyly did his cheating through an offshore scheme that hid $1 billion in profits via Isle of Man "shell companies" that existed only on paper, were registered under front men to hide the Wylys' names, and were used to carry out transactions and launder money. And that's only the hidden income that was found. The Dallas mogul, with a $1 billion admitted net worth, may be guilty of the biggest personal tax fraud in U.S. history.

Wyly used a system popular with megarich corporate executives. In 2000, Bank of America, the country's second-largest commercial bank, began offering a tax shelter called STARS, which the IRS has ruled illegal. Among the happy clients were Wyly and his brother Charles, who controlled the $5 billion Michaels Stores, the arts-and-crafts retailer with 900 shops.

The idea was to evade taxes by giving themselves stock options and transferring them to offshore corporations controlled by secret trusts in the Isle of Man, that famous British tax haven in the Irish Sea. "Manx" companies are routinely fakes; one of the front men on the boards of all the Wyly entities is a sheepherder, who picks up cash for use of his name.

U.S. law requires major stockholders to report their holdings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Company officials from Michaels Stores admitted that the Wylys had transferred company securities to offshore trusts and subsidiaries, and that the company and the Wylys had not reported it.

If you want to know how they did it, read the following paragraph. If your eyes glaze over, skip to the next.

How the scam works: A public company grants stock options to a top executive. The executive transfers the options to a trust or partnership controlled by his or her family. The transfer is called a "sale" and the trust "pays" for the options with a note due in 20 or 30 years. After the options are transferred, the trust exercises the option to buy stocks which it sells on the market. The executive plays out the fiction that tax is not owed until the deferred payment date, although in fact he controls the profit stashed offshore in a secret account where the IRS can't find it.

Wyly dumped profits into two hedge funds in the offshore Cayman Islands and laundered that into an investment in an annuity in offshore Bermuda. The annuity was written by a Bermuda reinsurance company he set up himself and which had one client, Sam.

He and brother Charles used some of the tax-evading profits for loans, homes and ranches (two ranches worth $54 million near Aspen, Colo.; condominiums worth $13 million in downtown Aspen; a 95-acre ranch worth $12 million near Dallas; and an oceanfront property worth $8 million in Malibu). He also bought jewelry and art (a Rockwell painting). Why did Bush's IRS commissioner forget to mention Wyly? He might say it's because the IRS is investigating the case but hasn't taken definitive action.

However, there could be two other reasons. One is that Wyly was not only the financier of the Swift Boats fraud to discredit John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, but the Wylys were Bush's ninth greatest career contributors, "Bush Pioneers," who collected $100,000 for the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. (Your money.)

They also funded other leading Republicans. Sam Wyly, since 1997 has given Republicans more than $1 million and his brother Charles and wife have donated more than $1.3 million. Among the beneficiaries were William H. Frist, Wilbert J. Tauzin, Thomas Delay, John D. Ashcroft, Richard J. Santorum, John S. McCain, Mitch McConnell, Dick Armey, Elizabeth H. Dole, Christine Todd Whitman, Orrin G. Hatch, Phil Gramm, Alfonse M. D'Amato, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. They also funded the ironically named Good Government Fund, Freedom Works Pac and Straight Talk America.

But there's another reason why the Bush administration doesn't like highlighting Wyly-style tax cheating. The Wylys have a lot of company. Every major private banking department offers a product called the "private placement offshore of variable annuities."

According to the IRS, business executives have used such shelters to evade taxes on $8 billion in income. Assume that means "at least." And that's just one swindle in the panoply of tax cheating which the IRS says contributes to the loss of $40 billion to $70 billion a year from individual use and $30 billion from corporate use of tax havens.

Compare $100 billion of offshore cheating to the $70 million headlined by Everson this month.

Those numbers are probably low: According to a Tax Justice Network report quoted by the Senate investigation and based on statistics from Merrill Lynch/Cap Gemini's "World Wealth Report" and the Boston Consulting Group's "Global Wealth Report," 16.2 percent of the private wealth of North Americans, $1.6 trillion, is held offshore. The overwhelming reason for that is tax evasion.

The Wylys' fraud tells us what we ought to be focusing on in order to stop the mega-tax cheats. Think "offshore" and "tax haven," the parallel international financial system run by the world's big banks. It is built on a network of more than 70 jurisdictions that in various combinations sell secret shell companies -- fake paper fronts -- and anonymous bank accounts.

The big time cheaters -- individuals and corporations -- who evade taxes in the millions don't go to the mall, they go offshore. The multinational banks run the secret accounts and accept as legitimate the paper shells that "own" them and that serve the world's crooks, terrorists, dictators, arms and drug traffickers -- and tax cheats. Banks such as Citibank set up shell companies themselves for clients' convenience and sometimes have their own employees serve as front men, i.e., "directors."

Everson indicated concern at the April press conference about "the increasing complexity associated with structured entities and transactions in the international arena and then the offshore area."

But, at the same press conference, when Eileen O'Connor, assistant attorney general for the Tax Division, mentioned the nine-year prison term awarded tax cheat Walter Anderson, who started his fortune with Mid-Atlantic Telecom in Washington, D.C., she didn't explain that he had evaded more than $200 million in taxes through schemes based in the offshore British Virgin Islands and Panama. The investigation started in the Clinton administration.

The Bush Administration from its first year, when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill torpedoed an OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) attempt to crack down on tax havens, has shown itself a friend of the shadowy system.

Now, Congress has a chance to act against the offshore tax-cheating Wylys of America. Carl Levin and Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who is savvy about the issue because he was a prosecutor, along with Barak Obama, have sponsored The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (S-681). It would:


  • Presume that nonpublicly traded offshore corporations and trusts are controlled by the U.S. taxpayers who formed them or sent them assets, unless the taxpayer proves otherwise;


  • Impose tougher requirements on U.S. taxpayers using offshore secrecy jurisdictions;


  • Give Treasury authority to take special measures against foreign jurisdictions and financial institutions that impede U.S. tax enforcement;


  • Require U.S. financial institutions that open accounts or entities in offshore secrecy jurisdictions for U.S. clients to report such actions to the IRS;


  • Tax offshore trust income used to buy real estate, artwork and jewelry for U.S. persons, and treat as trust beneficiaries those persons who actually receive offshore trust assets;


  • Increase the maximum fines on tax shelter promoters to 150 percent of their ill-gotten gains, and on corporate insiders who hide offshore stock holdings to $1 million per violation of U.S. securities laws;

  • Prohibit U.S. patents for "inventions designed to minimize, avoid, defer, or otherwise affect liability for federal, state, local or foreign tax"; and


  • Require hedge funds and company formation agents to establish know your customer and anti-money laundering programs like other U.S. financial institutions.


Most of those provisions could have blocked the Wylys' Isle of Man tax evasion.

Levin said, "None of these offshore schemes would work without the secrecy that prevents U.S. agencies from enforcing our laws. Our bill offers innovative ways to combat offshore secrecy. We can't let the offshore tax havens hide $100 billion in U.S. tax revenues which are needed to protect our troops, fund healthcare and education, and meet the other needs of American families."

But Obama's website doesn't mention the issue. Neither do those of Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, who haven't signed on to the bill. Bill Richardson, ditto. If any of them have talked about offshore tax evasion in speeches, it hasn't gotten coverage. Where do they stand on S-681?

For Democrats concerned about national health insurance and social welfare, blocking offshore tax evasion belongs at the top of the domestic agenda. Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus ought to call hearings to move S-681 down the legislative track.

The next Democratic president needs to sign the bill. He or she also must get America's G-8 partners to agree to end access by nontransparent financial centers to the world's major banking systems.

Every year that doesn't happen, billions of U.S. tax dollars are lost to the black hole of offshore bank secrecy. It's your money!

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: taxes, irs

Lucy Komisar, an investigative reporter, is writing "Take the Money and Run Offshore," a book about the global operations of offshore bank and corporate secrecy. She is co-chair of the Tax Justice Network-USA. Her articles appear on The Komisar Scoop.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Kafka
Posted by: kafka, f on Apr 17, 2007 1:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don’t you check out some of these tax loopholes?

As an avid reader of your publications, I was wondering why you never discuss the flip side of economic substance and tax shelters. The flip side being the IRS and DOJ treatment of tax shelter type transactions engaged in by their “family and friends”. How is one supposed to be able to interpret economic substance doctrine properly when the IRS has ruled favorably on economic substance issues for so many taxpayers yet declines to ever take into account the well known favorable decisions in explaining the basis for their unfavorable rulings. One of the best examples is Fulcrum Financial Partners.

Fulcrum is a court approved DOJ and IRS settlement with the taxpayer which yielded the taxpayer an $85 million noneconomic deduction in November of 1999 which everyone in the tax world knew about. Fulcrum was a son of boss type transaction where the DOJ and IRS held that the transaction had no chance of profit and was a sham yet allowed the deduction. Fulcrum was a three day T Bill short sale transaction with exactly offsetting six month positions (like the Salina Partnership transaction where the tax court in 2000 ruled economic substance existed but that the taxpayer was wrong on the Section 752 law).

I recently read an article by Ms. Sheppard of Tax Analysts wherein she stated that the IRS estimates individual taxpayers engaged in over 87,000 son of boss tax shelters using foreign currency options. The IRS and DOJ are arguing such transactions are fraudulent. The IRS and DOJ seem to be arguing the transactions are fraudulent because they lack economic substance. How can the purchase of an option whose price is computed under the Black Scholes formula lack economic substance as by definition the pricing methodology is fair market value and the chance for profit is reasonable based on the market mechanisms and none of the option positions were exactly offsetting as were the positions in Fulcrum.

What I do not understand is how after Fulcrum and many other decisions, the IRS and DOJ could even consider asserting penalties on son of boss type transactions especially after all the favorable holdings for their family and friends..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

kafka
Posted by: kafka, f on Apr 17, 2007 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a few examples of other tax loopholes:

In November of 1999 in the tax court case Fulcrum Financial Partners, the IRS and the tax court approved an $85 million deduction for Turner Broadcasting on a son of boss transaction even though the IRS held the transaction was a sham with no prospect for profit. See attached tax court case and settlement agreement for Turner Broadcasting and Fulcrum Financial Partners.

In 2001, a company that the current commissioner of the IRS was vice president of finance for Onyx, sold the Sky Chefs partnership for a $1.4 billion gain but avoided paying $400 million of taxes on such gain from the sale of this U.S. trade or business through the use of shell companies and foreign tax havens. See the attached 2001 Onyx financial report, page 54 where it shows $628 million of gains not reported as income. If one takes the time to review the entire Onyx financial report and the footnotes, it shows “Sky Chefs” was sold for $1.4 Billion and deferred taxes of $400 million were recorded on such sale. The report further provides that Sky Chefs business was headquartered in the U.S. with the current commissioner of the IRS as vice president of finance but no taxes were paid because Onyx is foreign owned and the shell tax haven entity that owned the U.S. trade or business was sold, thus, avoiding taxes using the types of tax shelter strategies the IRS commissioner today seems to be so against. Not to mention the report shows that Onyx had over $20 Billion of revenues but only provided $10 million for taxes.

In 1996, Cooper’s and Lybrand wrote a should level opinions on a son of boss type transactions for an audit clients which were approved by Cooper’s national office where the current IRS Chief Counsel worked as a high level partner and quality control monitor.

In 1999, Janet Balboni of the Chiefs Counsel office in the IRS approved a $189 million deduction for Enron from a son of boss variant transaction.

Further, the email below from Mr. Barral, legal counsel to the IRS, specifically states that the taxpayer is likely to prevail in court on the BLIPs tax shelter.

From: Barral Roland
To: Claybough Cheryl P
CC: DeNard Paul D DeNard@irs.gov>: Petrella John
; Stabile Maria T
GOV; Graziano Peter J
TREAS.GOV>
Sent: Wed May 21 08:05:57 2003
Subject: Re: May 15 Proposal

No - DOJ is out of line and we should ignore their comments. Since we have enough documents to compute the penalty, the correct thing may be to withdraw the enforcement action as we have the documents that we wanted. I see the issues that you mention as very minor, if not red herrings altogether. The key issues are the amounts of the penalties, the future compliance and the press release. If we do not take their offer there is a strong likelihood that we will get nothing from a court and in the process get some very bad law. This would reverse all the precedential gains that we have obtained. Again, this is the Service's call, but my advice is that it is a great offer that should be accepted. I do not believe that counsel can, in fairness, support the enforcement action beyond this point.

The IRS even allowed George Bush to escape millions in taxes on his sale of his interest in the Texas `Rangers for a gain of over $18 million through the use of a shell corporation and a complete disregard of tax law that would have caused President Bush to recharacterize a substantial portion of his gain as ordinary income (thereby increasing his tax bill by millions) under code Section 751. President Bush is of course no stranger to tax motivated transactions based on his treatment of employee stock options and nonrecoures debt with Harken Energy in 1991.

In any event these are just a few examples.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just another example of GOP immorality.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 17, 2007 4:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After compiling a list of White House transgressions, distortions and outright lies -- a work in progress -- why should I expect the GOP (Greedy Old People) NOT to cheat on taxes?

Here's my growing Bush impeachment list:

So-called Iraqi WMDs.
"Immediate" threats.
Yellow-cake uranium.
Aluminum tubes.
Mobile biological weapons labs.
Ties to Al Qaeda.
A 9/11 connection.
The Valerie Plame/CIA leak case.
Secret overseas prisons.
Torture.
Warrantless wiretaps of United States citizens.
Phony Al Qaeda plots.
False claims that America is safer now from terrorism than before 9/11.
Concealing the real cost of Gulf War 2.
Understating Iraqi civilian casualties.
Embellishing U.S. successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Misrepresenting the only wartime tax cut in American history.
Economically betraying senior citizens, the middle class and working poor.
Downplaying global warming.
Bush going on vacation during Hurricane Katrina while fellow Americans drowned in New Orleans.
Claiming wounded GIs got the best treatment possible at Walter Reed.
Preventing the coffins of returning GIs from being seen by the public.
Hiding injured Iraq veterans from the press after landing stateside.
Declassifying intelligence information for political purposes.
Firing U.S. attorneys for the same reason.

Add to my list the falsified presidential biography I found on a State Department website in 2004 and reported to the Boston Globe. Impressed, it ran the story the next morning, on 02/28/04, under the headline, “Bush Bio on Web Inflates Guard Service,” and gave me credit as the source.

Unfortunately for voters in 2004 who deserved to know about Dub-ya's bogus bio, not one U.S. paper or media outlet carried the story. Why? Because the Globe article was published on a Saturday. Apparently back then, people in the news business took weekends off instead of serving the public good.

To help make up for the media’s failure, I always end my AlterNet comments the same way.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (Bush’s bogus bio).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can you "cheat" a thief?
Posted by: BJT on Apr 17, 2007 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The IRS doesn't even follow its own rules. There is a standing bounty of $50,000 in reward to anyone who can point out the law, statute, and implementing regulation that requires us to pay a tax on the produce of our labor. No one has yet been able to cash in on it.

As this article aptly points out, the IRS focuses primarily on preying on individuals and small businesses. The tax code is so enormous because exemptions are constantly written for those wealthy enough to lobby for them. This is doubly evil, because the government takes that money it gets from the middle class and uses it to subsidize the wealthy. The whole system is broken and corrupt. Income taxes do not go to infrastructure and services. Social Security taxes do not go to Social Security. If the government hadn't made for itself $50 TRILLION dollars worth of liabilities in entitlement programs and arbitrary debt to a central bank, taxes would be so low it would hardly matter from whence they were collected, and we would certainly be able to do without an income tax.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time distinguishing between taxes and theft. If a gang of men met in a room somewhere and decided to send me a demand with a fancy letterhead for 20% of my earnings to pay their debts to a bank, or else they would capture or kill me, I could report them to the police for coercion. If that gang of men have a monopoly on force, and have costumes with logos on them, then we call their activity "taxation." I'm not buying it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tax shelters != Illegal
Posted by: BJT on Apr 17, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is nothing illegal about an offshore tax shelter. The law can get more complicated at that level and it's certainly possible to do something illegal once you have that kind of an asset structure, but if I may offer the following quote...

"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." -- Justice Learned Hand

If you can find a way to pay fewer taxes (especially if you are cognizant enough to know how wastefully they are being spent), why wouldn't you do it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tax shelters != Illegal Posted by: cephalis
» RE: Tax shelters != Illegal Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Fair and unfair Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Fair and unfair Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Fair and unfair Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Fair and unfair Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Tax shelters != Illegal Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Tax shelters != Illegal Posted by: JSquercia
DREAM ON
Posted by: gellero on Apr 17, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good quote above.........but if anyone believes DEMOCRATS don't do the same thing, you're living in dreamland. Next time you see a big boat with the usual Democrat party people ( ?? Denise Richards ?? ) check out the home port...if it says 'Grand Cayman' or 'Gurnsey'........well, you know where their money is !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If It's Unfair Why Participate?
Posted by: hole11 on Apr 17, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really. Three branches don't want to change anything. Take the manner in your own hands. Stand up and be a Rosie Parks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taxes, here is a new tax you can like paying!
Posted by: Lauren on Apr 17, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was just reading a review of the film documentary, Waiting to Inhale, in the Oaksterdam news. It has lots of $$ information about tax revenue. I just wanted to share, you know, pass it around. Maybe sanity can emerge, start a positive effect on our national thinking. (Now that the dilusional thinking has been exposed - we hope.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is some good stuff in here.
Posted by: chaoslegs on Apr 17, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it was David Cay Johnston's book Perfectly Legal that indicated that a trade was made to keep the Earned Income Tax Credit but increase the auditing of the program in the Clinton-Gringrich era. Perfectly Legal highlighted the absurdity of it when there are bigger fish to fry. In some ways it is like the whole voter fraud crap.

Michael Woodiwiss' Gangster Capitalism covers some of the issue of offshoring funds, but from corrupt leaders. These are the leaders who get loans or aid from the West or World Bank/IMF, and then leave their country holding the bag. This of course makes it easier for World Bank/IMF to impose conditions on restructuring loans on the country.

How about we just make global finance transparent. Or maybe we should have a war on Switzerland like in David Brin's sci-fi book Earth.

P.S. I am not sure how Richardson or Edwards (who I support) are supposed to sign on to a bill when they aren't in Congress. Yes, they could say they support it, but the phrasing seems inappropriate for their current positions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And another 'bag of worms'
Posted by: gellero on Apr 17, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ultimate question is why one individual should pay a greater proportion of his income than another. That's why there had to be a constitutional ammendment.......it's contrary to 'equal protection under the law', and that, in itself, is basically unfair.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

marylou
Posted by: ericksonml@sbcglobal.net on Apr 17, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fantastic article. Very disturbing. PLease keep Alter Net updated as to what happens to Wyly. The reality is that he goes back to the pre FDR set who think that it is mis-government that they should have to pay any taxes at all. Communism is the next step.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tax Shelters
Posted by: zap2scott on Apr 17, 2007 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is fair vs. what is legal - because they often ain't the same thing.

Who writes up the tax code? You and me? Of course not; it's our reps and their legal staffs who rely on and are indebted to big money for their jobs and their largess.

What is the economic benefit, or any other benefit to good ol' USA from offshore tax shelters? If they are going to provide shelters, at least do it where it provides the country, its people and the world some benefit. Note that some of those do exist through small investment and tax incentives and credits.

Then enforce it - equally - but start where the return is the highest and the example made is the biggest.

Money doesn't talk, it screams, as someone once said. Make it scream the right words, if that's possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CAPITALISM, that's why
Posted by: eyesunderwater on Apr 18, 2007 6:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe billionaires and sweatshop workers should pay the same?
Get a clue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CLUE??
Posted by: gellero on Apr 18, 2007 7:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same percentage........that's not fair??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement