Goldman Sachs screws the U.S., only paying 14 million in taxes

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Goldman Sachs screws the U.S., only paying 14 million in taxes

 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18

 

Goldman Sachs’s Tax Rate Drops to 1%, or $14 Million 

 

“This problem is larger than Goldman Sachs,” Doggett said. “With the right hand out begging for bailout money, the left is hiding it offshore.”

 

 

This blatant thievery committed against the American Public is yet another point to be hit upon. Even without the bailout: they are not paying their dues to society.

 

Your thoughts?

 


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Dude. The

darth_josh wrote:

Dude. The times article read as biased to me.

PRIG's estimates are conservative. Out of 50 businessmen I know, 10 I don't know whether they move money, the rest I know do. I own a small to mid sized business and I did as well until my system moved from gray-zone to red-zone manipulation according to law. At the moment I am looking for another gray-zone I feel comfortable with, since I don't feel like paying lawyers more than I actually save.

The more money a corporation makes, the lover % tax they can achieve.There are companies specializing in moving cash from anywhere to 10% or 0% corporate tax areas, but I think they are too expensive for the amount I deal with. I know for a fact that some people I know have moved several hundred million a year just a few years back and I can't imagine anything has changed since. The really big fish have in-house currency moving systems, achieving as little as 0% taxes paid in Denmark.

darth_josh wrote:

AND the pdf took forever to open and when I read it, I felt like I was being proselytized. Just because an organization says it is 'unbiased' or even 501(c)3 doesn't mean it adheres to the rules of being either.

Maybe buy a computer instead of that game boy?

darth_josh wrote:

I am afraid it is you that is exhibiting ignorance. You posted two links declaring them to be unbiased and yet they are closer to political documents than mein kampf.

I agree with you actually, except the "ignorance" part.

Not only are they biased, but they are so out of touch with the corporate world that their estimates are below what actually is going on to the extreme. The schemes in place that I have looked at over the years are just staggering. A few very big fish achieve 5% taxes paid here in denmark that I know of - as far as I know completely leagal, if gray-zone. McDonalds does not pay taxes in Denmark at all - 0%.

It took me years of dealing with these people to let it sink in - avoided taxes is a big part of their revenue. Employing a team of advisors and paying some 20k$ a month for an office in Channel Islands or some more exotic area is cheap compared to 5 or 10% of your sales. Or 28% in case of McD here in Denmark - you have got to look at their system. It is like a business inside of the business, aimed solely at avoiding paying any taxes. They even twist arms on local legislation here in Denmark. Denmark, the second least corrupt country in the world, according to the Transparency International.

darth_josh wrote:

The 'tax burdens shifted to the states' tables on page 7(10) of the pdf were calculated using THEIR OWN ESTIMATIONS NOT ACTUAL SUMS DOCUMENTED ANYWHERE ELSE!

Why is that? Because, dumbass, we don't know exactly how much money falls into this category. Nor do we know how much US money is held in offshore banks because of the confidentiality agreements with the account holders.

As a guy who has actually done this stuff, I can positivelly say that your logic is worth less than a basket of dingle berries. Let me put it this way: if you don't know or have a way to know, whoever controls the money will know that you don't know. That money is moved before you even start asking questions. The bigger the organization, the larger their potential is to find the best way to do this.

darth_josh wrote:

Now before you get all mad and cry while trying to type telling me that you think these are unbiased reports concerning the OP and anyone's response

I am not mad and I do not claim these are unbiased reports. I claim that they are way off the mark - the cost to the tax payer is far larger than what the paper states. 100 billion a year? Give me a break, that's small change compared to what they turn around. Goldman Sachs alone is paying out bonuses that is a third of that sum, what they turn around behind closed doors can not be compared.

I responded to Sapient's question about whether there were any reports in any respected papers out there that supported this idea of "tax havens", since he has never heard of them. NYT tends to be respected and I certainly get a fair amount of information from them. Not directly, mind you - you have to read between the lines and around the ideology to get to the core of the issues.

My response was hostile, because for me tax haven is every day business, just the way capital works. Him never having heard about it is just maddening - what kind of cretinous creatures am I living with?. Take a look around, it's all over the papers. Take a look at legislation as well, which bills are supported by the corporate lobby and which are not when it comes to off-shore transparency and draw some fucking conclusions from it.

darth_josh wrote:

, I want to ask in a sincere manner "What the fuck is wrong with you?"

What's wrong with me is that I actually do what Sapient and yourself deny existance off. I know it's hard to understand that you don't know what you are talking about, but please try. Our democracy will be better for it.

darth_josh wrote:

Sapient stays as or better informed than any of my friends and thank goodness I know some smart people. You aren't included in that list, ZuS.

Please read your own siggy too.

Cheers.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.