NPR: “Offshore Tax Havens”

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]….Hell, its a safe bet that even good, old, corporate good citizen Apple does, too.

Our tax system is a friggin’ joke. I cannot begin to imagine how much money has been lost due to loopholes, ineptitude and just general stupidity. I’d say its time for a change.[/quote]
The article uses Google as an example. Google moto’s is “do no evil”. I’m pretty sure all if not most large multi-national companies do this. This has nothing to do w/ financial company, it has everything to do with large corporation. 

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]I thought this thread was about taxes.

It’s about taxes. I posted it.

It’s about corporations that make LOTS OF MONEY…

But don’t pay any taxes.[/quote]

Yes I agree with you. That tax system needs to be fixed.

Corporations and the very rich should pay more taxes. But until the tax code is fixed, you can’t blame them for following the letter of the law.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]I thought this thread was about taxes.

It’s about taxes. I posted it.

It’s about corporations that make LOTS OF MONEY…

But don’t pay any taxes.[/quote]

Yes I agree with you. That tax system needs to be fixed.

Corporations and the very rich should pay more taxes. But until the tax code is fixed, you can’t blame them for following the letter of the law.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]I thought this thread was about taxes.

It’s about taxes. I posted it.

It’s about corporations that make LOTS OF MONEY…

But don’t pay any taxes.[/quote]

Yes I agree with you. That tax system needs to be fixed.

Corporations and the very rich should pay more taxes. But until the tax code is fixed, you can’t blame them for following the letter of the law.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]I thought this thread was about taxes.

It’s about taxes. I posted it.

It’s about corporations that make LOTS OF MONEY…

But don’t pay any taxes.[/quote]

Yes I agree with you. That tax system needs to be fixed.

Corporations and the very rich should pay more taxes. But until the tax code is fixed, you can’t blame them for following the letter of the law.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]I thought this thread was about taxes.

It’s about taxes. I posted it.

It’s about corporations that make LOTS OF MONEY…

But don’t pay any taxes.[/quote]

Yes I agree with you. That tax system needs to be fixed.

Corporations and the very rich should pay more taxes. But until the tax code is fixed, you can’t blame them for following the letter of the law.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]Brian,

The financial industry is directly and primarily responsible for the financial crash.

Yes, pension funds are underfunded. The underfunding is a percentage of overall losses. But most of the lost wealth is attributable to the financial crash.

Underfunding is a partial cause. The financial crash is the prime cause.[/quote]

That would be like saying that I need $500,000 for my retirement.

So I bought a house for $200,000 (or invested that amount in a portfolio) which then appreciated to $500,000 at the peak. I was happy, my retirement was taken care of.

But, OMG, the market crashed so my house is now only worth $250,000. Wall Street was responsible for my loss. I can’t retire, so they owe me!!!

Seriously, I was a participant in the market also and I originally benefited from it because I only had to put in $200,000 of my salary income. Therefore, over the years, I could enjoy a nicer lifestyle. But I could have lived more frugally, saved more, and bought safe US treasuries to reach the $500,000 goal that I needed. In the latter case the vagaries of Wall Street would not have affected me.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]Brian,

The financial industry is directly and primarily responsible for the financial crash.

Yes, pension funds are underfunded. The underfunding is a percentage of overall losses. But most of the lost wealth is attributable to the financial crash.

Underfunding is a partial cause. The financial crash is the prime cause.[/quote]

That would be like saying that I need $500,000 for my retirement.

So I bought a house for $200,000 (or invested that amount in a portfolio) which then appreciated to $500,000 at the peak. I was happy, my retirement was taken care of.

But, OMG, the market crashed so my house is now only worth $250,000. Wall Street was responsible for my loss. I can’t retire, so they owe me!!!

Seriously, I was a participant in the market also and I originally benefited from it because I only had to put in $200,000 of my salary income. Therefore, over the years, I could enjoy a nicer lifestyle. But I could have lived more frugally, saved more, and bought safe US treasuries to reach the $500,000 goal that I needed. In the latter case the vagaries of Wall Street would not have affected me.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]Brian,

The financial industry is directly and primarily responsible for the financial crash.

Yes, pension funds are underfunded. The underfunding is a percentage of overall losses. But most of the lost wealth is attributable to the financial crash.

Underfunding is a partial cause. The financial crash is the prime cause.[/quote]

That would be like saying that I need $500,000 for my retirement.

So I bought a house for $200,000 (or invested that amount in a portfolio) which then appreciated to $500,000 at the peak. I was happy, my retirement was taken care of.

But, OMG, the market crashed so my house is now only worth $250,000. Wall Street was responsible for my loss. I can’t retire, so they owe me!!!

Seriously, I was a participant in the market also and I originally benefited from it because I only had to put in $200,000 of my salary income. Therefore, over the years, I could enjoy a nicer lifestyle. But I could have lived more frugally, saved more, and bought safe US treasuries to reach the $500,000 goal that I needed. In the latter case the vagaries of Wall Street would not have affected me.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]Brian,

The financial industry is directly and primarily responsible for the financial crash.

Yes, pension funds are underfunded. The underfunding is a percentage of overall losses. But most of the lost wealth is attributable to the financial crash.

Underfunding is a partial cause. The financial crash is the prime cause.[/quote]

That would be like saying that I need $500,000 for my retirement.

So I bought a house for $200,000 (or invested that amount in a portfolio) which then appreciated to $500,000 at the peak. I was happy, my retirement was taken care of.

But, OMG, the market crashed so my house is now only worth $250,000. Wall Street was responsible for my loss. I can’t retire, so they owe me!!!

Seriously, I was a participant in the market also and I originally benefited from it because I only had to put in $200,000 of my salary income. Therefore, over the years, I could enjoy a nicer lifestyle. But I could have lived more frugally, saved more, and bought safe US treasuries to reach the $500,000 goal that I needed. In the latter case the vagaries of Wall Street would not have affected me.

[briansd1]

[quote=gandalf]Brian,

The financial industry is directly and primarily responsible for the financial crash.

Yes, pension funds are underfunded. The underfunding is a percentage of overall losses. But most of the lost wealth is attributable to the financial crash.

Underfunding is a partial cause. The financial crash is the prime cause.[/quote]

That would be like saying that I need $500,000 for my retirement.

So I bought a house for $200,000 (or invested that amount in a portfolio) which then appreciated to $500,000 at the peak. I was happy, my retirement was taken care of.

But, OMG, the market crashed so my house is now only worth $250,000. Wall Street was responsible for my loss. I can’t retire, so they owe me!!!

Seriously, I was a participant in the market also and I originally benefited from it because I only had to put in $200,000 of my salary income. Therefore, over the years, I could enjoy a nicer lifestyle. But I could have lived more frugally, saved more, and bought safe US treasuries to reach the $500,000 goal that I needed. In the latter case the vagaries of Wall Street would not have affected me.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=gandalf]Brian,

The financial industry is directly and primarily responsible for the financial crash.

Yes, pension funds are underfunded. The underfunding is a percentage of overall losses. But most of the lost wealth is attributable to the financial crash.

Underfunding is a partial cause. The financial crash is the prime cause.[/quote]

That would be like saying that I need $500,000 for my retirement.

So I bought a house for $200,000 (or invested that amount in a portfolio) which then appreciated to $500,000 at the peak. I was happy, my retirement was taken care of.

But, OMG, the market crashed so my house is now only worth $250,000. Wall Street was responsible for my loss. I can’t retire, so they owe me!!!

Seriously, I was a participant in the market also and I originally benefited from it because I only had to put in $200,000 of my salary income. Therefore, over the years, I could enjoy a nicer lifestyle. But I could have lived more frugally, saved more, and bought safe US treasuries to reach the $500,000 goal that I needed. In the latter case the vagaries of Wall Street would not have affected me.[/quote]

What if you bought those Treasuries from, say…Goldman Sachs, and they sold you AAA-rated bonds. Let’s say that the Treasuries were bundled in such a way that there was no real transparency; you knew these securities were backed by Treasuries, but weren’t told that buried deep in presumably “govt backed” Treasuries, there were “Treasuries” from Zimbabwe and Somalia. But Goldman Sachs didn’t tell you that. They just told you that these were bundles of AAA-rated “government-backed” debt.

Let’s say Goldmans Sachs was paid a handsome commission/fee for handling these sales to you. Billions and billions of dollars over the years. Now, let’s say there was an “unexpected” problem in the African debt market (okay, you got me, the failure in this debt market might not really be “unexpected,” but we’ll just call it that, okey-dokey?). Now, you are seeing losses of 30%, 40%…80% on some of these securities. Yikes!

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs was shorting these securities, even though “NOBODY could have seen the defaults coming.”

Once the “financial crisis” becomes more apparent, the U.S. govt decides to prop up the prices of this debt, so they buy or guarantee a good portion of these investments. As a pension fund manager, you also benefit from this “propping up,” but the losses you’ve taken still put you in the red.

So, Goldman Sachs made money on the upside, and the downside. They’ve also not had to fork over any of the fees/commissions they’ve made selling these securities to you. They also benefit by having the govt guarantee the debt that they still hold on their books. They’ve made out very well…far better than you have.

Now, the pension funds are still underfunded, partially because of the losses, and also because you didn’t fund them when the times were really good. The returns were so high during the “African debt” bubble, that you told the govt employers not to contribute any money toward these pensions.

And now, we turn to the union members… Somehow, they MUST be responsible for these losses, right? Somehow, THEY are the ones who’ve caused the pension funds to be underfunded, right?

IMHO, I think it’s prudent to have Goldman Sachs (in my example) give back all fees and commissions charged for EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION involving these securities. Then, let’s give back all of the profits they’ve made shorting these securities. Let’s use this money to offset the losses in your pension fund. Once that’s done, we can talk about reducing compensation for the workers. First things first. Let the financial firms take the first loss on these investments. Then, we can deal with the unions.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=gandalf]Brian,

The financial industry is directly and primarily responsible for the financial crash.

Yes, pension funds are underfunded. The underfunding is a percentage of overall losses. But most of the lost wealth is attributable to the financial crash.

Underfunding is a partial cause. The financial crash is the prime cause.[/quote]

That would be like saying that I need $500,000 for my retirement.

So I bought a house for $200,000 (or invested that amount in a portfolio) which then appreciated to $500,000 at the peak. I was happy, my retirement was taken care of.

But, OMG, the market crashed so my house is now only worth $250,000. Wall Street was responsible for my loss. I can’t retire, so they owe me!!!

Seriously, I was a participant in the market also and I originally benefited from it because I only had to put in $200,000 of my salary income. Therefore, over the years, I could enjoy a nicer lifestyle. But I could have lived more frugally, saved more, and bought safe US treasuries to reach the $500,000 goal that I needed. In the latter case the vagaries of Wall Street would not have affected me.[/quote]

What if you bought those Treasuries from, say…Goldman Sachs, and they sold you AAA-rated bonds. Let’s say that the Treasuries were bundled in such a way that there was no real transparency; you knew these securities were backed by Treasuries, but weren’t told that buried deep in presumably “govt backed” Treasuries, there were “Treasuries” from Zimbabwe and Somalia. But Goldman Sachs didn’t tell you that. They just told you that these were bundles of AAA-rated “government-backed” debt.

Let’s say Goldmans Sachs was paid a handsome commission/fee for handling these sales to you. Billions and billions of dollars over the years. Now, let’s say there was an “unexpected” problem in the African debt market (okay, you got me, the failure in this debt market might not really be “unexpected,” but we’ll just call it that, okey-dokey?). Now, you are seeing losses of 30%, 40%…80% on some of these securities. Yikes!

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs was shorting these securities, even though “NOBODY could have seen the defaults coming.”

Once the “financial crisis” becomes more apparent, the U.S. govt decides to prop up the prices of this debt, so they buy or guarantee a good portion of these investments. As a pension fund manager, you also benefit from this “propping up,” but the losses you’ve taken still put you in the red.

So, Goldman Sachs made money on the upside, and the downside. They’ve also not had to fork over any of the fees/commissions they’ve made selling these securities to you. They also benefit by having the govt guarantee the debt that they still hold on their books. They’ve made out very well…far better than you have.

Now, the pension funds are still underfunded, partially because of the losses, and also because you didn’t fund them when the times were really good. The returns were so high during the “African debt” bubble, that you told the govt employers not to contribute any money toward these pensions.

And now, we turn to the union members… Somehow, they MUST be responsible for these losses, right? Somehow, THEY are the ones who’ve caused the pension funds to be underfunded, right?

IMHO, I think it’s prudent to have Goldman Sachs (in my example) give back all fees and commissions charged for EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION involving these securities. Then, let’s give back all of the profits they’ve made shorting these securities. Let’s use this money to offset the losses in your pension fund. Once that’s done, we can talk about reducing compensation for the workers. First things first. Let the financial firms take the first loss on these investments. Then, we can deal with the unions.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=gandalf]Brian,

The financial industry is directly and primarily responsible for the financial crash.

Yes, pension funds are underfunded. The underfunding is a percentage of overall losses. But most of the lost wealth is attributable to the financial crash.

Underfunding is a partial cause. The financial crash is the prime cause.[/quote]

That would be like saying that I need $500,000 for my retirement.

So I bought a house for $200,000 (or invested that amount in a portfolio) which then appreciated to $500,000 at the peak. I was happy, my retirement was taken care of.

But, OMG, the market crashed so my house is now only worth $250,000. Wall Street was responsible for my loss. I can’t retire, so they owe me!!!

Seriously, I was a participant in the market also and I originally benefited from it because I only had to put in $200,000 of my salary income. Therefore, over the years, I could enjoy a nicer lifestyle. But I could have lived more frugally, saved more, and bought safe US treasuries to reach the $500,000 goal that I needed. In the latter case the vagaries of Wall Street would not have affected me.[/quote]

What if you bought those Treasuries from, say…Goldman Sachs, and they sold you AAA-rated bonds. Let’s say that the Treasuries were bundled in such a way that there was no real transparency; you knew these securities were backed by Treasuries, but weren’t told that buried deep in presumably “govt backed” Treasuries, there were “Treasuries” from Zimbabwe and Somalia. But Goldman Sachs didn’t tell you that. They just told you that these were bundles of AAA-rated “government-backed” debt.

Let’s say Goldmans Sachs was paid a handsome commission/fee for handling these sales to you. Billions and billions of dollars over the years. Now, let’s say there was an “unexpected” problem in the African debt market (okay, you got me, the failure in this debt market might not really be “unexpected,” but we’ll just call it that, okey-dokey?). Now, you are seeing losses of 30%, 40%…80% on some of these securities. Yikes!

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs was shorting these securities, even though “NOBODY could have seen the defaults coming.”

Once the “financial crisis” becomes more apparent, the U.S. govt decides to prop up the prices of this debt, so they buy or guarantee a good portion of these investments. As a pension fund manager, you also benefit from this “propping up,” but the losses you’ve taken still put you in the red.

So, Goldman Sachs made money on the upside, and the downside. They’ve also not had to fork over any of the fees/commissions they’ve made selling these securities to you. They also benefit by having the govt guarantee the debt that they still hold on their books. They’ve made out very well…far better than you have.

Now, the pension funds are still underfunded, partially because of the losses, and also because you didn’t fund them when the times were really good. The returns were so high during the “African debt” bubble, that you told the govt employers not to contribute any money toward these pensions.

And now, we turn to the union members… Somehow, they MUST be responsible for these losses, right? Somehow, THEY are the ones who’ve caused the pension funds to be underfunded, right?

IMHO, I think it’s prudent to have Goldman Sachs (in my example) give back all fees and commissions charged for EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION involving these securities. Then, let’s give back all of the profits they’ve made shorting these securities. Let’s use this money to offset the losses in your pension fund. Once that’s done, we can talk about reducing compensation for the workers. First things first. Let the financial firms take the first loss on these investments. Then, we can deal with the unions.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=gandalf]Brian,

The financial industry is directly and primarily responsible for the financial crash.

Yes, pension funds are underfunded. The underfunding is a percentage of overall losses. But most of the lost wealth is attributable to the financial crash.

Underfunding is a partial cause. The financial crash is the prime cause.[/quote]

That would be like saying that I need $500,000 for my retirement.

So I bought a house for $200,000 (or invested that amount in a portfolio) which then appreciated to $500,000 at the peak. I was happy, my retirement was taken care of.

But, OMG, the market crashed so my house is now only worth $250,000. Wall Street was responsible for my loss. I can’t retire, so they owe me!!!

Seriously, I was a participant in the market also and I originally benefited from it because I only had to put in $200,000 of my salary income. Therefore, over the years, I could enjoy a nicer lifestyle. But I could have lived more frugally, saved more, and bought safe US treasuries to reach the $500,000 goal that I needed. In the latter case the vagaries of Wall Street would not have affected me.[/quote]

What if you bought those Treasuries from, say…Goldman Sachs, and they sold you AAA-rated bonds. Let’s say that the Treasuries were bundled in such a way that there was no real transparency; you knew these securities were backed by Treasuries, but weren’t told that buried deep in presumably “govt backed” Treasuries, there were “Treasuries” from Zimbabwe and Somalia. But Goldman Sachs didn’t tell you that. They just told you that these were bundles of AAA-rated “government-backed” debt.

Let’s say Goldmans Sachs was paid a handsome commission/fee for handling these sales to you. Billions and billions of dollars over the years. Now, let’s say there was an “unexpected” problem in the African debt market (okay, you got me, the failure in this debt market might not really be “unexpected,” but we’ll just call it that, okey-dokey?). Now, you are seeing losses of 30%, 40%…80% on some of these securities. Yikes!

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs was shorting these securities, even though “NOBODY could have seen the defaults coming.”

Once the “financial crisis” becomes more apparent, the U.S. govt decides to prop up the prices of this debt, so they buy or guarantee a good portion of these investments. As a pension fund manager, you also benefit from this “propping up,” but the losses you’ve taken still put you in the red.

So, Goldman Sachs made money on the upside, and the downside. They’ve also not had to fork over any of the fees/commissions they’ve made selling these securities to you. They also benefit by having the govt guarantee the debt that they still hold on their books. They’ve made out very well…far better than you have.

Now, the pension funds are still underfunded, partially because of the losses, and also because you didn’t fund them when the times were really good. The returns were so high during the “African debt” bubble, that you told the govt employers not to contribute any money toward these pensions.

And now, we turn to the union members… Somehow, they MUST be responsible for these losses, right? Somehow, THEY are the ones who’ve caused the pension funds to be underfunded, right?

IMHO, I think it’s prudent to have Goldman Sachs (in my example) give back all fees and commissions charged for EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION involving these securities. Then, let’s give back all of the profits they’ve made shorting these securities. Let’s use this money to offset the losses in your pension fund. Once that’s done, we can talk about reducing compensation for the workers. First things first. Let the financial firms take the first loss on these investments. Then, we can deal with the unions.

[Author]

Posts