Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Jul 31, 2013.
Why is the emphasis on Citigroup when they are only ninth on the list, and Apple is second?
Because Citi got a government bail out when they were going under.
Blame the law makers who bailed them out and wrote the tax laws.
If they do that, businesses will complain about over-regulation. Some of those complaints would probably be justified. It's not easy for a small business to shift money around in the same manner. When you're talking about billions of dollars, the amounts being moved escalate faster than the accounting costs.
How is a simple tax code over regulation? The code is so complex now that companies are able to not pay.
I really need to consider clarity in what I post. Governments do deprecate or amend old portions of the tax code at times, but much of the time it's just the addition of new rules, exclusions, or exceptions. The fact that so many governments complain about this behavior should tell you that it's not easy to halt through legislation. I'm not convinced they could make it work given partisan behavior and lobbyist influence. There are some things that are much more difficult to address than others.
Did you read any of the Starbucks articles? According to the articles they claimed their UK businesses incurred losses primarily through inflated transfer pricing and IP licensing fees (again paid to a wholly owned subsidiary). The US has some measures against that level of abuse, but these are businesses that can afford to employ an army of accountants, and it's not always possible to affect only the unintended consequences of other laws.
I've read a lot of simplify the tax code suggestions, yet no one attempts to address the logistics involved. I don't know enough to write about that part.
What motivation do any politicians have to simplify the tax code? Or to change it in some way that doesn't ultimately benefit those corporations who basically bankroll their campaigns?
Ban corporate money in elections.
Find those who take bribes.
Execute them, publicly.
Worked great in France.
And as far as banks go, we should have let them fail, and jail their owners and board members,
Probably because wikipedia has this to say about the current US Secretary of the Treasury:
In June 2006, (Jacob) Lew was named chief operating officer of Citigroup's Alternative Investments unit, a proprietary trading group. The unit he oversaw invested in a hedge fund "that bet on the housing market to collapse." During his work at Citigroup, Lew had invested heavily in funds in Ugland House while he worked as an investment banker at Citigroup during the 2008 financial meltdown. Lew also had oversight of Citigroup subsidiaries in countries including, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Hong Kong; and during his time at Citigroup, Citigroup subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands increased to 113.
I like it. But *how*? Are a majority of lawmakers going to eschew a majority of their contributions? Are these same people going to appoint judges who will do away with corporate political contributions? I honestly see absolutely no way the system is going to change.
Only allowing public funding for candidates .