PDA

View Full Version : Economics The economic case for tax havens


Taco John
03-26-2010, 05:47 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yi0lkJBTi58&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yi0lkJBTi58&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2010, 05:53 PM
Just another example of the looter class doing everything they can to leach off the system.

Taco John
03-26-2010, 06:08 PM
Just another example of the looter class doing everything they can to leach off the system.


By keeping more of the money they earn?

I see nothing morally wrong with protecting your property.

Taco John
03-26-2010, 06:09 PM
Nobody owes anybody else welfare.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2010, 06:38 PM
Nobody owes anybody else welfare.

It's not welfare, it's a contribution back into the system that allowed you to make that money in the first place.

But this is a pointless argument, because we aren't going to find a common ground or a shared set of assumptions. You'd be fine with privatizing the air we breathe and the water we drink.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2010, 06:41 PM
By keeping more of the money they earn?

I see nothing morally wrong with protecting your property.

Money only exists because of a social agreement that it has some kind of intrinsic value.

That's the irony of your stance: it's completely asocial all the while relying on a societal acceptance in order to give that which you place above all else: money, worth.

Taco John
03-26-2010, 06:55 PM
It's not welfare, it's a contribution back into the system that allowed you to make that money in the first place.

Yes, we know. Back and back and back and back and back and back into the system.

Taco John
03-26-2010, 06:57 PM
Money only exists because of a social agreement that it has some kind of intrinsic value.

That's the irony of your stance: it's completely asocial all the while relying on a societal acceptance in order to give that which you place above all else: money, worth.

There's nothing asocial about my stances. Nothing at all.

What could possibly be asocial about the ideas of free trade and free association?

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2010, 07:02 PM
If one really believed this crap and they were to be ethically and morally consistent, they would simply move somewhere else. Don't like it here, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Good luck.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2010, 07:04 PM
Just another example of the looter class doing everything they can to leach off the system.

Just another example of someone thinking other people's money is his in order to label them a looter for wanting to keep more of the fruits of his labor. And a "contribution?" To what? Controls? Most of them don't need half of the system. It's bloated and too expensive. Freedom helps one succeed not govt or the system. Too much of that is a stop for success. The system we're supposed to have allows one to keep more of the fruits of their labor.

Communistic thinking at its finest.

Taco John
03-26-2010, 08:04 PM
If one really believed this crap and they were to be ethically and morally consistent, they would simply move somewhere else. Don't like it here, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Good luck.


I disagree. Just because there are snakes in the house doesn't mean the house is worthless. I'd just as soon stick around and help drive out the snakes.

orange
03-27-2010, 12:51 PM
Death of a Loophole, and Swiss Banks Will Mourn
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: March 26, 2010


WITH all the hoopla over the health care bill, hardly anybody noticed that a job creation bill that President Obama signed on March 18 makes it much harder for United States citizens to avoid taxes by hiding money in overseas bank accounts.

Nobody likes to pay taxes, of course. But for those of us dutifully handing over our share each year, there is nothing more maddening than stories of tax-avoidance schemes created by fee-hungry bankers for well-heeled clients.

We’ve heard a lot of these tales in recent years, alas. Foreign tax havens like Switzerland, Liechtenstein and some Caribbean countries thrive by keeping their clients’ money under wraps and safe from tax authorities’ reach.

Now, Congress is attacking some of these schemes, courtesy of interesting provisions aimed at curbing tax avoidance that legislators wrote into the new jobs bill, known as the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act.

The most substantive section of the bill states that foreign financial institutions will face a 30 percent tax on their United States investments if they refuse to disclose information about accounts they have opened for American citizens in offshore jurisdictions. Another aspect of the bill eliminates a clever derivatives strategy used by investors to make their tax bills on dividends disappear.

Individuals have stashed an estimated $1 trillion in offshore accounts, the government says, allowing them to avoid up to $70 billion in taxes each year. The federal government estimates that abusive offshore schemes by corporations cost our Treasury an estimated $30 billion in tax revenue as well.

Given our large and growing deficits, $100 billion in annual tax revenue would sure come in handy.

“The bill is a huge step in the right direction because you cannot imagine how negligent we were with this stuff for years and years,” said Lee Sheppard, contributing editor of Tax Notes, a tax journal in Washington. “We’re getting serious about tax enforcement on cross-border investment flows in a way that we never have before.”

UNDER the bill, a 30 percent withholding tax would be imposed on foreign financial institutions that refuse to provide details on their United States clients’ accounts, such as who owns them and how much money moves through them. The tax would be assessed on earnings generated by investments these foreign institutions have in United States Treasury securities, stocks, bonds or debt and equity interests in American businesses.

The law was written broadly and covers banks, hedge funds, securities houses, derivatives dealers, commodity traders and private equity firms. Indeed, any financial firm that holds or trades assets for its own account or for clients must comply with the new reporting requirements.

It will be up to the Treasury Department to decide how the law applies to insurance companies. The Treasury will also have to create a system to withhold the tax from institutions that do not comply with the reporting requirements. It has until the end of 2012 to do so.

“Before this bill was passed, the I.R.S. had no reliable way to learn about offshore accounts, and that gave people the opportunity to cheat the system,” said Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee and pushed for the bill’s reporting rules. “Tax evaders cost our country tens of billions of dollars every year in unpaid taxes, and honest, law-abiding taxpayers pay the price.”

It might seem surprising that the bill sailed through the legislative process, given its implications for financial institutions. But United States banks had no interest in lobbying against it; in fact, they may well benefit from the law as potential customers find it harder to shelter money in foreign institutions.

The law also closes a gaping tax loophole that allows investors who receive dividends on companies’ shares to pay no taxes on them. The Government Accountability Office estimates that billions of dollars in potential tax revenue are lost each year through the use of so-called dividend equivalent strategies.

Under our laws, dividends paid by United States companies to foreign shareholders are supposed to be taxed at 30 percent. But for many years, banks have structured deals using derivatives that allow clients to turn dividends into “dividend equivalents.” Though these payments look like dividends, because they are embedded in a derivative they do not generate a tax.

Here’s how they work: Say a hedge fund holds shares in General Electric. By entering into a swap agreement with a financial institution, the fund can simultaneously sell its G.E. shares a few days before the dividend is issued and receive a derivative tied to the value of the shares and the dividend payment.

After G.E. pays the dividend, the swap is canceled and the investor gets back the shares plus the dividend equivalent payment. The bank that did the trade typically charges a fee linked to the amount of tax savings the hedge fund reaps.

The new law eliminates the tax-free aspect to this transaction, because it treats the swap payments as dividends.

Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who leads the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has been scrutinizing tax-avoidance schemes for years. His staff’s investigations turned up the dividend equivalent transactions that the law addresses.

“We’ve got a ways to go, but these are significant steps,” Mr. Levin said last week. He added that he still hopes to pass a law “that would allow us to take the same measures against foreign financial institutions that impede our tax-collection efforts that we do against our own.”

While Ms. Sheppard predicted that the new law would have a big effect, she said there were more effective ways to clamp down on schemes. “If you really wanted to stop this, you would define tax evasion as a predicate act to money laundering,” she said. “Currently the money-laundering information the banks give the government is not given to the I.R.S. for civil tax enforcement.”

Such a move would be deemed too radical by many. As a result, we must be content with incremental changes.

ROBERT M. MORGENTHAU, the former Manhattan district attorney who spent many years cracking down on tax-avoidance schemes, commended the new law.

“When citizens don’t pay their taxes, then other citizens have to pick up the burden,” he said. “It’s important that no group of people have immunity from U.S. laws, and this will go a long way to reaching these offshore accounts where U.S. citizens hide their earnings.”

With our nation’s debt levels swelling by the day, we all face the prospect of higher taxes levied to cover those obligations. That makes chasing down tax evaders more important than ever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/business/28gret.html?ref=us

chris
03-27-2010, 04:19 PM
Just another example of the looter class doing everything they can to leach off the system.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing your beliefs and values. Looters?

This is the politicians trying to convince you that high net worth folk are being held accountable so that you buy into the corrupted class warfare tax collection process.

Yes, tax havens are wrong. However, there are numerous other ways to move assets out of USA and not pay taxes. Why shouldn't they move assets: they are being screwed for their hard work and lifetime of savings.

Taco John
03-27-2010, 05:47 PM
Tax havens aren't wrong. What is possibly wrong about them?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-27-2010, 05:49 PM
Amazing. Absolutely amazing your beliefs and values. Looters?

This is the politicians trying to convince you that high net worth folk are being held accountable so that you buy into the corrupted class warfare tax collection process.

Yes, tax havens are wrong. However, there are numerous other ways to move assets out of USA and not pay taxes. Why shouldn't they move assets: they are being screwed for their hard work and lifetime of savings.

Sorry if I find the concept of Goldman Sachs paying an effective tax rate in 2008 of 1% objectionable by using this same process.

googlegoogle
03-27-2010, 06:22 PM
Taco. That guy in the vid also dismantles & dis-spells Keynesian economics. So check out his other vids. Saw them week ago.

chris
03-27-2010, 06:31 PM
Sorry if I find the concept of Goldman Sachs paying an effective tax rate in 2008 of 1% objectionable by using this same process.

Your comments were about people;

people who used tax shelters.

Stay focused on the topic.

Corporations are a whole different duck.

whoman69
03-27-2010, 06:33 PM
The whole argument is flawed. The claim that the economy was so much better than in the 1970's because of flat tax rates leaves out that this was written right before the economic collapse hit.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-27-2010, 06:36 PM
Your comments were about people;

people who used tax shelters.

Stay focused on the topic.

Corporations are a whole different duck.

They are both equally objectionable. Income taxes pay for services, and American rates of taxation are by no means Draconian.

Mr. Kotter
03-27-2010, 06:39 PM
The whole argument is flawed. The claim that the economy was so much better than in the 1970's because of flat tax rates leaves out that this was written right before the economic collapse hit.

Eh, that don't matter to the dunderheads. Either way selfish cock suckers like this would feel entitled to their embezzlement, forgetting that we paid for their greed and excesses then (a deep recession in 1979-1983) AND now (the recent cluster-fukk.) Of course their sense of entitlement blinds them to their own role is the problems then and now.

chris
03-27-2010, 06:52 PM
They are both equally objectionable. Income taxes pay for services, and American rates of taxation are by no means Draconian.

Agree that tax havens are wrong;

however, and we've beaten this to death, our taxation methodology is flawed. Why should some pay ~40% when other pay far less?

It's all about class warfare and politicians working the system to keep themselves in power,

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-27-2010, 07:11 PM
Agree that tax havens are wrong;

however, and we've beaten this to death, our taxation methodology is flawed. Why should some pay ~40% when other pay far less?

It's all about class warfare and politicians working the system to keep themselves in power,

I got beat up last year by stating that I'm tired of paying others share of taxes. :(

So yes, I applaud the fact that one can move assets outside of USA. However, if profits are made on those assets, one should report the taxes.

Fortunately, for the rich, no one pays 40% anymore, or the 70% that was the top marginal rate in 1980, nor do they pay as much in payroll taxes as the average worker, since their FICA tax is capped at 106K.

chris
03-27-2010, 07:25 PM
Fortunately, for the rich, no one pays 40% anymore, or the 70% that was the top marginal rate in 1980, nor do they pay as much in payroll taxes as the average worker, since their FICA tax is capped at 106K.

Hummm...35% PLUS the Health Care Bill Tax????

Please, please, please can we have flat tax?? :)

banyon
03-27-2010, 07:27 PM
Tax havens aren't wrong. What is possibly wrong about them?


You're fond of overly simplistic disanalogistic metaphors:

Would there be anything wrong with someone going to the Post Office, holding it up at gunpoint and robbing their till?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-27-2010, 07:35 PM
Hummm...35% PLUS the Health Care Bill Tax????

Please, please, please can we have flat tax?? :)

We have enough regressive taxation as it is.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-27-2010, 07:36 PM
You're fond of overly simplistic disanalogistic metaphors:

Would there be anything wrong with someone going to the Post Office, holding it up at gunpoint and robbing their till?

I see this all the time in papers from students who try to apply a theory they don't fully understand. This is no different.

chris
03-27-2010, 09:04 PM
We have enough regressive taxation as it is.

You mean, redistribution taxation. :)

Taco John
03-27-2010, 09:13 PM
You're fond of overly simplistic disanalogistic metaphors:

Would there be anything wrong with someone going to the Post Office, holding it up at gunpoint and robbing their till?

Of course there would be. That person would be using force to take the property of others. Strangely, you're in favor of it when it's the IRS holding the gun.

banyon
03-27-2010, 09:31 PM
Of course there would be. That person would be using force to take the property of others. Strangely, you're in favor of it when it's the IRS holding the gun.

That's what you are advocating. Using the public's services and not contributing to it. Thieving from the public. (you're fond of overstating "thievery" right?)

Basically it's the converse of "no taxation without representation". It's Representation without taxation.

Taco John
03-27-2010, 09:35 PM
That's what you are advocating. Using the public's services and not contributing to it. Thieving from the public. (you're fond of overstating "thievery" right?)

Basically it's the converse of "no taxation without representation". It's Representation without taxation.


Nonsense. Don't be silly.

banyon
03-27-2010, 10:12 PM
Nonsense. Don't be silly.

Good retort. :huh:

Taco John
03-27-2010, 10:15 PM
What's to respond to?

banyon
03-27-2010, 10:20 PM
What's to respond to?

Nothing, just pretend my post didn't exist. Stick your fingers in your ears.

Taco John
03-27-2010, 10:51 PM
Nothing, just pretend my post didn't exist. Stick your fingers in your ears.


I responded adequately to your post.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2010, 10:54 PM
Using public services. LMAO
They probably use less of them or hardly any of them. And what they do use they pay with tolls, excise taxes, sales taxes and property tax and is about what they actually use. It's just defense they need to worry about. The rest stuff it.

The system suppresses them more than it aids them. They succeed despite the system. The systems needs them more than they need it.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2010, 10:56 PM
Oh I forgot, everything's public to a progressive because they socialize so many things they make it all govt.

banyon
03-27-2010, 11:00 PM
I responded adequately to your post.

sure.

chiefzilla1501
03-27-2010, 11:02 PM
Eh, that don't matter to the dunderheads. Either way selfish cock suckers like this would feel entitled to their embezzlement, forgetting that we paid for their greed and excesses then (a deep recession in 1979-1983) AND now (the recent cluster-fukk.) Of course their sense of entitlement blinds them to their own role is the problems then and now.

The economy isn't broken because of greed and excess. It's broken because of:
1) Credit default swaps: a good product, but the risk was severely underestimated
2) Subprime mortgage loans: while there's some greed in pushing a bad product, in most cases, it was about homebuyers trying to live well beyond their means and not expecting to eventually pay the piper
3) Unions that fought for ridiculous benefits and made it okay for employees to stay on a job, even though they didn't do jackshit. And for older employees to collect on these ridiculous legacy benefits.

Yeah, there are cases of greed and excess, but let's not act like this economy busted because of greedy CEOs. It was just a perfect storm of a lot of things that didn't go well. And I would argue that what's troubling for America is not that we're mistreating the middle class, as much as it how much we're pampering them. This country needs innovation. We're not the leader in anything anymore. And when employees are continually poo-pooed to work lazily and not get fired, this is what happens. It's no wonder Toyota's quality started to implode when they started to produce in the U.S.

I think trickle-down economics is an extremely flawed theory. But I also think we need to be inspiring these richer innovators to continue to innnovate, rather than continuing to poo poo the middle class. Unfortunately, we're moving in the complete opposite direction. Increasing taxes on business leaders and increasing benefits to the middle class? That's not the way to do it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-27-2010, 11:06 PM
The economy isn't broken because of greed and excess. It's broken because of:
1) Credit default swaps: a good product, but the risk was severely underestimated


Unbelievably stupid.

CDSs should never have to exist, because banks shouldn't be giving out loans with that high of a chance of default, nor should they be bundling them in with good mortages when they are really junk and passing them off as AAA investments to the people who bought the CDOs.

chiefzilla1501
03-28-2010, 12:20 AM
Unbelievably stupid.

CDSs should never have to exist, because banks shouldn't be giving out loans with that high of a chance of default, nor should they be bundling them in with good mortages when they are really junk and passing them off as AAA investments to the people who bought the CDOs.

Why is it stupid? CDSs are a perfectly legitimate investment. You're insuring against risk. And banks/investment banks frequently carry risky securities--they need to be able to hedge against that exposure somehow. And besides, CDSs have made the market a lot more transparent. Because premiums are publicly available, it's helped create a lot of transparency of risk.

CDSs were a problem because the government stupidly did NOTHING to regulate the markets. Nobody knows who owns what. It's mind-numbingly stupid that the government sat on their hands as this was happening in front of their very eyes. If the gov't were to heavily regulate the CDS market, it would be a perfectly legitimate financial instrument.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-28-2010, 01:06 AM
Why is it stupid? CDSs are a perfectly legitimate investment. You're insuring against risk. And banks/investment banks frequently carry risky securities--they need to be able to hedge against that exposure somehow. And besides, CDSs have made the market a lot more transparent. Because premiums are publicly available, it's helped create a lot of transparency of risk.

CDSs were a problem because the government stupidly did NOTHING to regulate the markets. Nobody knows who owns what. It's mind-numbingly stupid that the government sat on their hands as this was happening in front of their very eyes. If the gov't were to heavily regulate the CDS market, it would be a perfectly legitimate financial instrument.

By Government stupidity, you mean guys like Phil Gramm writing legislation while head of the banking committee that neutered Glass Steagall and no one in the financial sector or the legislator listening to Government regulators like Brooksley Borne at the CFTC instead of plutocrats like Rubin, Summers, Greenspan, etc?

CDSs were a problem because they should have never been allowed to exist in the first place.

chris
03-28-2010, 09:13 AM
The economy isn't broken because of greed and excess. It's broken because of:
1) Credit default swaps: a good product, but the risk was severely underestimated
2) Subprime mortgage loans: while there's some greed in pushing a bad product, in most cases, it was about homebuyers trying to live well beyond their means and not expecting to eventually pay the piper
3) Unions that fought for ridiculous benefits and made it okay for employees to stay on a job, even though they didn't do jackshit. And for older employees to collect on these ridiculous legacy benefits.

Yeah, there are cases of greed and excess, but let's not act like this economy busted because of greedy CEOs. It was just a perfect storm of a lot of things that didn't go well. And I would argue that what's troubling for America is not that we're mistreating the middle class, as much as it how much we're pampering them. This country needs innovation. We're not the leader in anything anymore. And when employees are continually poo-pooed to work lazily and not get fired, this is what happens. It's no wonder Toyota's quality started to implode when they started to produce in the U.S.

I think trickle-down economics is an extremely flawed theory. But I also think we need to be inspiring these richer innovators to continue to innnovate, rather than continuing to poo poo the middle class. Unfortunately, we're moving in the complete opposite direction. Increasing taxes on business leaders and increasing benefits to the middle class? That's not the way to do it.

Standing Ovation!!!!!!!!!

Dave Lane
03-28-2010, 10:06 AM
Tax havens aren't wrong. What is possibly wrong about them?

Ummm because people are not pay the TAXES they OWE and are avoiding taxes the rest of us do pay. I'd be much more understanding if it was for investment money moved to another country. Tax fraud which is a law makes this unlawful in the first place. Every needs to have the same rules for paying taxes.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 10:09 AM
Just another example of the looter class doing everything they can to leach off the system.

The bandit calling the banker a thief is a rationalization that goes back a long way. Just north of Kansas City is the birthplace and childhood home of Jesse James, a man who made the same argument.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 10:16 AM
This seems like as good a place as any to put this.

Death of a Loophole, and Swiss Banks Will Mourn
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: March 26, 2010

We'd all be better off if we changed our tax laws to decrease the incentive these people have for hiding their money instead of going to war against them. Afterall, we can't collect taxes from all the people who choose not to bring their money to America based on the same set of incentives that lead these people to try to hide theirs.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 10:29 AM
That's what you are advocating. Using the public's services and not contributing to it. Thieving from the public. (you're fond of overstating "thievery" right?)

Basically it's the converse of "no taxation without representation". It's Representation without taxation.

In your view, should the US be able to expect to collect taxes from all the people of the world no matter how their affairs are organized? How about the people in counties that receive aid from the US? How about the people from member countries of defense pacts like NATO and SEATO that obligate the US to come to their defense if they are attacked? How about everyone who has ever visited the US?

banyon
03-28-2010, 11:25 AM
In your view, should the US be able to expect to collect taxes from all the people of the world no matter how their affairs are organized?

Uh, no.

How about the people in counties that receive aid from the US?

no.

How about the people from member countries of defense pacts like NATO and SEATO that obligate the US to come to their defense if they are attacked? How about everyone who has ever visited the US?

No.

I don't know what any of these tangents have to do with corporations and individuals making bank in this country and then trying to avoid taxation by an international loophole.

chiefzilla1501
03-28-2010, 11:45 AM
By Government stupidity, you mean guys like Phil Gramm writing legislation while head of the banking committee that neutered Glass Steagall and no one in the financial sector or the legislator listening to Government regulators like Brooksley Borne at the CFTC instead of plutocrats like Rubin, Summers, Greenspan, etc?

CDSs were a problem because they should have never been allowed to exist in the first place.

But I think you're missing the point that in a well-regulated market (and there were plenty of chances to do it), CDSs would have been just fine. You're basically taking insurance out for assuming default risk, and spreading that risk out. I think you're pointing to CDSs as the problem, when in fact the problem was this free-for-all in an unregulated market where nobody was tracking the high volume of activity for CDSs--always a guarantee of problems later.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 11:53 AM
Uh, no.



no.



No.

I don't know what any of these tangents have to do with corporations and individuals making bank in this country and then trying to avoid taxation by an international loophole.

Do you think this is about people not paying taxes on the full amount of their earned income that comes from work done in the US, because I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's not really an issue here.

whoman69
03-28-2010, 09:38 PM
Hummm...35% PLUS the Health Care Bill Tax????

Please, please, please can we have flat tax?? :)

The only thing a flat tax does is raise the rates on those who can't afford it and drop it for those who can't. I have no problem with a system that says that those who can afford to pay more, those who gain the most out of the system in place, pay more. Its not like they don't have tons of loopholes to get out of paying that rate anyway.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 10:04 PM
The only thing a flat tax does is raise the rates on those who can't afford it and drop it for those who can't. I have no problem with a system that says that those who can afford to pay more, those who gain the most out of the system in place, pay more. Its not like they don't have tons of loopholes to get out of paying that rate anyway.

I disagree with everything you said here from the number of things a flat tax is good for to whether or not the poor can afford it to who gains the most from our system. On that last point, have you ever seen the poor in a third world country? Most of our poor live like kings by comparison.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-28-2010, 10:19 PM
But I think you're missing the point that in a well-regulated market (and there were plenty of chances to do it), CDSs would have been just fine. You're basically taking insurance out for assuming default risk, and spreading that risk out. I think you're pointing to CDSs as the problem, when in fact the problem was this free-for-all in an unregulated market where nobody was tracking the high volume of activity for CDSs--always a guarantee of problems later.

No, CDSs should never have to exist, because banks shouldn't be bundling together mortages and selling them as a grab bag.

Speculative race track betting is what led people to create the CDS. It's an invention of a fraudulent system by crooked bankers using inaccurate and purposely opaque formulas. It's a perfect instrument for the creation of bubbles.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2010, 10:20 PM
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."— NORMAN THOMAS (1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America


Source:
1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign,
[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican and Democratic parties had adopted every plank on the Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform on which to run.]


'Nuff said!

Reaper16
03-28-2010, 10:29 PM
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."— NORMAN THOMAS (1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America


Source:
1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign,
[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican and Democratic parties had adopted every plank on the Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform on which to run.]


'Nuff said!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/socialism.asp

Taco John
03-28-2010, 11:27 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/socialism.asp



I think Upton Sinclair nails it there:

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label."

Perfect.

orange
03-29-2010, 12:54 AM
I think Upton Sinclair nails it there:

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label."

Perfect.

Hence the right's strategy of labelling everything they don't like, however far-removed and absurd, as "Socialism."

Perfect indeed.

Third Eye
03-29-2010, 01:28 AM
No, CDSs should never have to exist, because banks shouldn't be bundling together mortages and selling them as a grab bag.


C'mon, you're too intelligent for this. First, CDSs do not exist exclusively for mortgage securities. Second, how are they different than any other form of insurance?

The problem isn't with the vehicle, it's with a) insuring institutions' inability to properly asses risk and b) a complete lack of capital requirements allowing companies to leverage themselves to death.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-29-2010, 01:37 AM
C'mon, you're too intelligent for this. First, CDSs do not exist exclusively for mortgage securities. Second, how are they different than any other form of insurance?

The problem isn't with the vehicle, it's with a) insuring institutions' inability to properly asses risk and b) a complete lack of capital requirements allowing companies to leverage themselves to death.

No, you can bundle together things like Life Insurance too, and sell a mixed bag of risks at one set risk passing it off as investment grade.

Secondly, they are different from insurance in that insurance is paid off on losses actually suffered and they aren't calculated on actuarial analysis (but rather on in house formulas).

You can use an analogy to compare a CDS to insurance, but the underpinnings of it operate wholly different from insurance.

Third Eye
03-29-2010, 01:52 AM
No, you can bundle together things like Life Insurance too, and sell a mixed bag of risks at one set risk passing it off as investment grade.

Secondly, they are different from insurance in that insurance is paid off on losses actually suffered and they aren't calculated on actuarial analysis (but rather on in house formulas).

You can use an analogy to compare a CDS to insurance, but the underpinnings of it operate wholly different from insurance.

Absolutely one of the core issues as I said. But again, if risk were properly quantified and all parties involved are aware of and agree to the payout then I don't see the problem.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-29-2010, 02:00 AM
Absolutely one of the core issues as I said. But again, if risk were properly quantified and all parties involved are aware of and agree to the payout then I don't see the problem.

There are a number of systemic failures that would need to be fixed, laws re-written and exemptions overturned for this to happen.

The entire market exists for the purpose of short term bubble inflation so that the executives pushing these derivatives will get huge bonus payouts before the bill comes due.

Third Eye
03-29-2010, 02:19 AM
There are a number of systemic failures that would need to be fixed, laws re-written and exemptions overturned for this to happen.

The entire market exists for the purpose of short term bubble inflation so that the executives pushing these derivatives will get huge bonus payouts before the bill comes due.

Again, no argument here. My only point was that the problem was with the execution of the derivative, not the derivative itself.

I must admit though, I'm also curious as to why you feel mortgages shouldn't be securitized. Subtract the subprime lending, and it's another functioning financial tool.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 07:47 AM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/socialism.asp

BucEyedPea spreading false quotes? Say it ain't so.

I detect the beginnings of a pattern.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 07:49 AM
I think Upton Sinclair nails it there:

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label."

Perfect.

Yes, whether BEP's quote is real or not, it's true in this case.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2010, 08:04 AM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/socialism.asp

Snopes does not confirm or deny....it says "probably wrong."
That's conjecture.As far as I am concerned that affects Snopes credibility.

Snopes is also incorrect on the origins too. It wasn't just used by Ronald Reagan on socialized medicine. It's been in books and I cited the original source of it. That should tell Snopes they should dig up all his interviews if they want to debunk it. They didn't did they?

I've observed leftists and progressives trying to disprove that quote for years it embarrasses them so much. I've seen progressive sites trying to claim it never existed too.Furthermore, it is entirely consistent with how radicals operate. Orwell spoke of changing language in order to implement a socialist world. He was an active member of the Fabian Society at one time. Fabians were socialists who didn't want to advertise they were socialists. Their logo is a wolf wearing a sheep's skin.

Kinda reminds of an aunt who travelled in the Soviet Union in the mid-eighties. She accidentally saw a beautiful home when some gates opened during a tour. She commented on it. The communist travel agent told her: "No you did not see that!" That tells me all I need to know about the biggest liars on the planet.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 08:11 AM
Snopes does not confirm or deny....it says "probably wrong."
That's conjecture.As far as I am concerned that affects Snopes credibility.


Snopes is also incorrect on the origins. It wasn't just used by Ronald Reagan on socialized medicine. It's been in books and I cited the original source of it.

I've observed leftists and progressives trying to disprove that quote for years it embarrasses them so much. I've seen progressive sites trying to claim it never existed too.Furthermore, it is entirely consistent with how radicals operate. Orwell spoke of changing language in order to implement a socialist world. He was an active member of the Fabian Society at one time. Fabians were socialists who didn't want to advertise they were socialists. Their logo is a wolf wearing a sheep's skin. Says all!

Where did you see a reference to the original source? Surely you didn't see/hear it in it's original form so you must be relying on a secondary source for the reference. If it's LewRockwell or Ron Paul, we've got a credibility concern based on past performance (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6640264#post6640264). If it's a more credible source, it would be great to hear about it.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2010, 08:13 AM
Hence the right's strategy of labelling everything they don't like, however far-removed and absurd, as "Socialism."

Perfect indeed.

No it's not labeling everything we don't like. Everything just happens to have a label. All a label is a name for something so it can be recognized. Some people don't want it recognized is what is going on here. It just helps to categorize ideas, thoughts or political ones. It's not meant as an epithet though. We just don't like it. I mean your name is a label too. Every object, person, or place has one....but we can't label a set of ideas at all. We're supposed to lie about it instead.

Some people are students of the subject and can recognize it better than others. You guys think it has to be the former Soviet model to be called socialism. It doesn't. Why is Sweden "labeled" as socialist? It is. It may be in the form of a wealth transfer payments but that still redistribution. It's just executed differently. Underneath it's the same economic system.

American has been undergoing what is designated as Fabian socialism for years. The job is being wrapped up under Obama. I mean look at his connections: He attended a black liberation theology church, associated with Marxists and worked alongside Acorn.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2010, 08:23 AM
"Yes, Norman Thomas did say that. "


From 1921 to 1922, Thomas served as the associate-editor of The Nation. -banyon's favored rag

BucEyedPea
03-29-2010, 08:30 AM
Thomas also received a check for $17,500 in donations from supporters. "It won't last long," he said of the check, "because every organization I'm connected with is going bankrupt."[20] LMAO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mattoon_Thomas

banyon
03-29-2010, 08:42 AM
Do you think this is about people not paying taxes on the full amount of their earned income that comes from work done in the US, because I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's not really an issue here.

Yes. (http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/tax--budget-policy/tax--budget-policy--reports/tax-shell-game-the-taxpayer-cost-of-offshore-corporate-havens)

patteeu
03-29-2010, 08:52 AM
Yes. (http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/tax--budget-policy/tax--budget-policy--reports/tax-shell-game-the-taxpayer-cost-of-offshore-corporate-havens)

Inflammatory language notwithstanding, this sentence late in the statement you linked says all:

Recommendation

• The federal government should relieve taxpayers of this unfair burden by closing the loopholes in the tax code that allow the use of offshore tax havens.

In other words, this isn't an example of a company not paying the taxes they owe. It's an example of the tax code not requiring them to pay.

Taco John
03-29-2010, 08:56 AM
Inflammatory language notwithstanding...

Inflammatory indeed. I couldn't help but laugh at all the pinko talk...

patteeu
03-29-2010, 08:58 AM
"Yes, Norman Thomas did say that. "


From 1921 to 1922, Thomas served as the associate-editor of The Nation. -banyon's favored rag

Sorry, BEP. Citing Answers.com is like citing a forum post. That particular answer was provided by a 53 year old unemployed Brit who enjoys computers, cooking, digital photography, gardening and listening to music. He goes by Knighttemplar (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/User:Knighttemplar) on the web.

His motto is "Have Horse, Armour, Shield and Sword, will travel within WikiAnswers righting wrongs. :) "

and he's got a pretty avatar:

http://i954.photobucket.com/albums/ae24/knighttemplar_2009/Templar_Knight_in_Battle_Dress_by_a.jpg


The jury is still out.