Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why they shouldn't get my tax money for bailout!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why they shouldn't get my tax money for bailout!

    Who's going to give me some if I'm in trouble? At least I pay my taxes!


    Report: Over 8 in 10 corporations have tax havens

    By KEN THOMAS, Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 16, 6:28 pm ET

    WASHINGTON – Eighty-three of the nation's 100 largest corporations, including Citigroup, Bank of America and News Corp., had subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2007, and some of the companies received federal bailout funding, a government watchdog said Friday.

    The Government Accountability Office released a report that said Bank of America Inc., Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley all had more than 100 units in countries that maintain low or no taxes. The three financial institutions were included in the $700 billion financial bailout approved by Congress.

    Insurance giant American International Group Inc., which has received about $150 billion in bailout money, had 18 subsidiaries. JPMorgan Chase & Co. had 50 units and Wells Fargo & Co. had 18; both financial institutions received government bailout money.

    Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who requested the report, have pushed for tougher laws to fight offshore tax havens around the globe. Levin, who leads the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has estimated abusive tax havens and offshore accounts cost the U.S. government at least $100 billion a year in lost taxes.

    "I think we should take action to shut down these tax dodgers and we will be introducing legislation to do just that," Dorgan said.

    General Motors Corp., which received $13.4 billion from the federal rescue package, had 11 offshore subsidiaries while GM's financing arm, GMAC LLC, had two offshore units. GMAC, whose majority owner is private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP, received $5 billion from the Treasury Department in late December.

    Citigroup said in a statement that it has more than 4,000 subsidiaries around the globe "which enables us to serve hundreds of millions of individuals and institutions in more than 100 countries." A News Corp. spokeswoman declined comment. Messages were left with several of the companies identified in the report.

    Separately, the GAO said 63 of the 100 largest federal contractors maintain subsidiaries in 50 tax havens.

    Levin noted that many competitors use the tax havens to varying degrees. PepsiCo Inc. has 70 subsidiaries while the Coca-Cola Co. has eight units. Caterpillar Inc. had 49 while Deere & Co. had three.

    "We need to put an end to the use of offshore secrecy jurisdictions as tax havens," Levin said.

    The GAO said the subsidiaries could be established in the countries "for a variety of nontax business reasons" and said having a business unit in one of the countries "does not signify that a corporation or federal contractor established that subsidiary for the purpose of reducing its tax burden."

    Citigroup had 427 units in 23 countries, including 91 subsidiaries in Luxembourg and 90 in the Cayman Islands. Morgan Stanley had 273 units, News Corp. had 152 and Bank of America had 115. Procter & Gamble Co. had 83 subsidiaries and Pfizer Inc. had 80 in the jurisdictions.

    Several major corporations have announced plans to leave Bermuda, a leading offshore business center, amid the global financial crisis and fears of tighter tax rules. Tyco Electronics Ltd., which makes electronic components, and Foster Wheeler Ltd., an engineering and construction company, are reincorporating in Switzerland — which has a tax treaty with the U.S. — for tax and other reasons. Covidien Ltd., a health care products company, is heading to Ireland.

    ___

    On the Net:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office: http://www.gao.gov/




    Diplomacy, it's a way of saying “nice doggie”, until you find a rock!

  • #2
    And what about all the revenue they attract BECAUSE the banks are established in tax havens? It is their customers that benefit, much more than the banks themselves. If I were to go to the Cayman Islands with $10 million stashed in my briefcase, do you think that cash will stay in Cayman in the bank's vault? Of course not. It will invested across the world, financing your car loan or mortgage in the USA or Europe; it will have some of it invested in the company you work for, in shares or bonds. It will be put to work, so that the original investor can be paid an interest or dividend, which HE will hide from Mr Taxman.

    Meanwhile, the usurious profit that the bank has made with the same money will be consolidated into the bank group's accounts and tax paid accordingly. Any local taxes that the bank has paid in the Caymans will be deductible, of course.

    I would have thought it would be very desirable for their HQ countries for CitiGroup, UBS, etc. to have the means to offer offshore accounting for all the rich Arabs to stash their oil money away.
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Brian Ellis View Post
      And what about all the revenue they attract BECAUSE the banks are established in tax havens? ....

      ...I would have thought it would be very desirable for their HQ countries for CitiGroup, UBS, etc. to have the means to offer offshore accounting for all the rich Arabs to stash their oil money away.

      No problem with that, as long as they go back to them when in trouble.

      STAY AWAY FROM MY TAX MONEY!!!

      No deposit – No withdrawal, Banks should have understand this better then anyone, no?

      .
      Diplomacy, it's a way of saying “nice doggie”, until you find a rock!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ND66 View Post
        ...
        No deposit – No withdrawal, Banks should have understand this better then anyone, no?

        .

        Hm, not really; considering that they, basically, borrow to others more money than they have...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nowhere View Post
          Hm, not really; considering that they, basically, borrow to others more money than they have...

          If you go and carelessly load up your credit card, would anyone give you the money to pay off your screw up, besides your own dad?

          They got to greedy and were lending the money left and right just to generate more profit. You could be death, but if you did 20% down payment, they wouldn’t even bother to verify if you’re alive, you’ve got approved.


          .
          Diplomacy, it's a way of saying “nice doggie”, until you find a rock!

          Comment


          • #6
            Here's what they do with my money again...


            JUST PLANE DESPICABLE

            By JENNIFER GOULD KEIL and CHUCK BENNETT

            January 26, 2009 --

            Beleaguered Citigroup is upgrading its mile-high club with a brand-new $50 million corporate jet - only this time, it's the taxpayers who are getting screwed.


            Even though the bank's stock is as cheap as a gallon of gas and it's burning through a $45 billion taxpayer-funded rescue, the airhead execs pushed through the purchase of a new Dassault Falcon 7X, according to a source familiar with the deal.

            The French-made luxury jet seats up to 12 in a plush interior with leather seats, sofas and a customizable entertainment center, according to Dassault's sales literature. It can cruise 5,950 miles before refueling and has a top speed of 559 mph.

            There are just nine of these top-of-the-line models in the United States, with Dassault's European factory churning out three to four 7Xs a month.

            Citigroup decided to get its new wings two years ago, when the financial-services giant was flush with cash, but it still intends to take possession of the jet this year despite its current woes, the source said.

            "Why should I help you when what you write will be used to the detriment of our company?" replied Bill McNamee, head of CitiFlight Inc., the subsidiary that manages Citigroup's corporate fleet, when asked to comment about the new 7X.

            "What relevance does it have but to hurt my company?"

            It's not uncommon for large companies to pay a deposit on a new plane then cancel the order before delivery, according to a source in the corporate aviation business.

            Citigroup execs are also quietly trying to unload two of their older Dassault 900EXs.

            Those jets, nearly 10 years old, are worth an estimated $27 million each. They were still listed for sale yesterday on the Web site of Citigroup's aviation broker, Aviation Professionals.

            A company representative said she would not comment on "brokering both sides of the deal" when asked about the incoming Falcon 7X.

            The Dassaults are part of CitiFlight's Gulf Sierra fleet, which includes the two Falcon 900EXs, tail numbers N399GS and N588GS, currently for sale. FAA records show Citigroup reserved a new tail number, N488GS, possibly for the incoming 7X on Nov. 10 last year.

            A woman answering the phone at CitiFlight's private hangar in White Plains said she was "not authorized to release information" about the new jet.

            Dassault's US sales office declined to comment.

            Citigroup spokesman Stephen Cohen declined to comment.
            Diplomacy, it's a way of saying “nice doggie”, until you find a rock!

            Comment


            • #7
              Citigroup execs are also quietly trying to unload two of their older Dassault 900EXs.

              Those jets, nearly 10 years old, are worth an estimated $27 million each. They were still listed for sale yesterday on the Web site of Citigroup's aviation broker, Aviation Professionals.
              Of course nobody wants a 10 year old Dassault. The wings are ready to fall off!

              Kevin

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KRSESQ View Post
                Of course nobody wants a 10 year old Dassault. The wings are ready to fall off!

                If they are looking for sympathy, they can find it in a dictionary, it’s located somewhere in between shit and syphilis…

                .
                Diplomacy, it's a way of saying “nice doggie”, until you find a rock!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Reminds me of what Mr. Buffet had to say in 2004 (2003 annual report) from page 6 a.o.:
                  Taxes
                  On May 20, 2003, The Washington Post ran an op-ed piece by me that was critical of the Bush tax proposals. Thirteen days later, Pamela Olson, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Treasury, delivered a speech about the new tax legislation saying, “That means a certain midwestern oracle, who, it must be noted, has played the tax code like a fiddle, is still safe retaining all his earnings.” I think she was talking about me. Alas, my “fiddle playing” will not get me to Carnegie Hall – or even to a high school recital. Berkshire, on your behalf and mine, will send the Treasury $3.3 billion for tax on its 2003 income, a sum equaling 2½% of the total income tax paid by all U.S. corporations in fiscal 2003. (In contrast, Berkshire’s market valuation is about 1% of the value of all American corporations.) Our payment will almost certainly place us among our country’s top ten taxpayers. Indeed, if only 540 taxpayers paid the amount Berkshire will pay, no other individual or corporation would have to pay anything to Uncle Sam. That’s
                  right: 290 million Americans and all other businesses would not have to pay a dime in income, social security, excise or estate taxes to the federal government. (Here’s the math: Federal tax receipts, including social security receipts, in fiscal 2003 totaled $1.782 trillion and 540 “Berkshires,” each paying $3.3 billion, would deliver the same $1.782 trillion.)

                  Our federal tax return for 2002 (2003 is not finalized), when we paid $1.75 billion, covered a mere 8,905 pages. As is required, we dutifully filed two copies of this return, creating a pile of paper seven feet all. At World Headquarters, our small band of 15.8, though exhausted, momentarily flushed with pride: Berkshire, we felt, was surely pulling its share of our country’s fiscal load.

                  But Ms. Olson sees things otherwise. And if that means Charlie and I need to try harder, we are ready to do so.

                  I do wish, however, that Ms. Olson would give me some credit for the progress I’ve already made.

                  In 1944, I filed my first 1040, reporting my income as a thirteen-year-old newspaper carrier. The return covered three pages. After I claimed the appropriate business deductions, such as $35 for a bicycle, my tax bill was $7. I sent my check to the Treasury and it – without comment – promptly cashed it. We lived in peace.
                  * * * * * * * * * * * *
                  I can understand why the Treasury is now frustrated with Corporate America and prone to
                  outbursts. But it should look to Congress and the Administration for redress, not to Berkshire. Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934. Even so, tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part
                  of the Administration’s 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning.[Italics Umf] Today, many large corporations – run by CEOs whose fiddle-playing talents make your Chairman look like he is all thumbs – pay nothing close to the stated federal tax rate of 35%.

                  In 1985, Berkshire paid $132 million in federal income taxes, and all corporations paid $61
                  billion. The comparable amounts in 1995 were $286 million and $157 billion respectively. And, as mentioned, we will pay about $3.3 billion for 2003, a year when all corporations paid $132 billion. We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future – it will mean we are prospering – but we also hope that the rest of Corporate America antes up along with us. This might be a project for Ms. Olson to work on.
                  The whole letter of Mr. Buffet is an interesting read down to page 10.

                  Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                  [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X