Googling Revenues Offshore.. Legal Banking Fraud ..or theft..?

[beystr 2.0]

I just watched a report on CNN about Google transferring a huge sum of its revenues to Bermuda..somethinglike 9.8 Billion dollars..now of course..this is probably a tiny sum when compared to all the money sent to these islands to avoid tax and possibly hide many other illegal activities…For all we know , Switzerland used to be the magnet for all the riches to store their money..but Swiss is in euro and perhaps under more eyes ….so the money has moved to warmer more hospitable banking locations..btw- I would have hoped at least the natives of this islands would live a very prosperous life being in the vicinity of this much wealth but the reality does not reveal a pretty picture on this aspect of laundered money either.

It is amusing and actually disturbing that the Banking system is so sophisticated that the smallest transaction from/to Iran or by an Iranian is tracked.. confiscated..or stopped and all…but these trillions of dollars justgo where they want to go..

It is also quite interesting that all these islands are former British colonies and present subsidiaries of GB..and with the latest discoveries..there is no doubt as to London being the infested waters of a trashy banking that rules the world…I just wonder what do Brits do with all these money…does this not make them the Lord of the rings of sorts and pretty much owners..or keepers of the major amount of wealth generated in today’s economy..do we even care to correct this…can we even attempt to..? I think we can if enough light is shed on it…it won’t be without much cost..and could be a reason for a WWIII…so is it even worth its while..?

 

[masoudA]

just a couple of juicy notes on the subject -
1- Google chairman Eric Schmit turned down Obama's offer to join his cabinet as Business Secretary - some!! say it is because he had to reveal his off-shore banking activities.
http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/google-chairman-turns-down-job-with-obama

2- The British Bank HSBC agrees to pay $1.9 billion settlement because of being involved with IR for money laundering.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/10/news/companies/hsbc-money-laundering/index.html

 

[Flint]

So I can "transfer" my 401K offshore and pay no taxes? It doesn't matter where you send your money. If you made it here, you pay taxes on it. Someone please explain. Of course, Google can't wait to underwrite every liberal program that comes down the pike. I won't be surprised if they are asking for tax hikes too.

 

[OSTAD POOYA]

Your 401K is not being earned from foreign earnings as where Google is an international company that does business in many countries. There has been talks in reference to institutions moving money around and even many prominent members of the big companies change nationalities to pay lesser taxes or show their earnings in other countries. So this is no surprise that behind the tax code can be many facets enabling such companies transfer funds and show their earnings and taxes based on various laws. And in reference to HSBC and many other banks they have done this and I am sure to an extent still doing so. HSBC use to bring in funds from Iran and upon transferring the funds the US label it as having originated somewhere in England. They did this for a while before being caught.

 

[Bi-honar]

So I can "transfer" my 401K offshore and pay no taxes? It doesn't matter where you send your money. If you made it here, you pay taxes on it. Someone please explain. Of course, Google can't wait to underwrite every liberal program that comes down the pike. I won't be surprised if they are asking for tax hikes too.

There are ways to do it with your personal taxes as well, but it's not the easiest thing and you pretty much have to live in another country and denounce your US citizenship not to be in a grey taxation area (i.e. not a bad idea for retirement if you're planning to move, but not for everyday avoidance of taxes!).

But the way these multi-national companies do it, is they set up their main offices in a tax haven and then charge loyalties and licensing fees to subsidiaries in other countries, so that almost all of the profit made in high tax countries is transferred to the main office in form of loyalty/licensing expenses. This practice have been going on for a long time and is perfectly legal, but the tax authorities in many countries are now trying to label it as tax avoidance measures and close the loopholes.

 

[Kaz]

This practice have been going on for a long time and is perfectly legal, but the tax authorities in many countries are now trying to label it as tax avoidance measures and close the loopholes.

And you know what will happen? They'll just find other ways. Sometimes I wonder why governments even bother. Well, actually, I know why, but I wonder why people in general still think such things work or are even beneficial.

 

[Flint]

There are no "loopholes". Politicians write the laws and when people take advantage of them they call it loopholes. Based on this logic, when Toyota closed its last manufacturing plant in California and moved it to low tax Texas, they should be prosecuted. And is it any surprise that Obama is moving heaven and earth to tax businesses making over $250k and yet is mum over this Google? I guess Eric Schmidt has already paid his dues.

 

[lordofmordor]

Because people always try to stop robbery and thieves. Difference is some here dont think stealing at high level is robbery but at the lower level, where the amount being taken advantage is 1000 times less, these same people go crazy and wanting to slash all social programs due to it.

And you know what will happen? They'll just find other ways. Sometimes I wonder why governments even bother. Well, actually, I know why, but I wonder why people in general still think such things work or are even beneficial.

 

[lordofmordor]

This is not islamic republic or third world. There are laws made for the good of the economy of the country that is to be followed. There is no such thing as having already paid the dues.

There are no "loopholes". Politicians write the laws and when people take advantage of them they call it loopholes. Based on this logic, when Toyota closed its last manufacturing plant in California and moved it to low tax Texas, they should be prosecuted. And is it any surprise that Obama is moving heaven and earth to tax businesses making over $250k and yet is mum over this Google? I guess Eric Schmidt has already paid his dues.

 

[Kaz]

Because people always try to stop robbery and thieves. Difference is some here dont think stealing at high level is robbery but at the lower level, where the amount being taken advantage is 1000 times less, these same people go crazy and wanting to slash all social programs due to it.

Excuse me, but keeping what you've earned is not robbing nor thievery. This is the inherent logical difference between yourself and myself. In fact, you are at odds with the founders of the country you reside in. People have been indoctrinated these days to believe the government owns the fruits of your labor and are giving you the right to hold a certain amount. It is the complete opposite. You are not a slave.

If people/businesses didn't do all they could to keep their money, short of committing fraudulent acts, then they'd be stupid.

 

[masoudA]

This is not islamic republic or third world. There are laws made for the good of the economy of the country that is to be followed. There is no such thing as having already paid the dues.

Dear Lordi -
HSBC Bank of London made $37 billion in 2011, they helped IR launder money against the best interests of America, the Brits so called "Biggest Ally" and paid $1.9 billion in "settlement penalties"!! - as part of this settlement HSBC does not have to now reveal any names or secrets in dealing with IR!!!! I'd say the Brits have made their own creature IR look like "aftabeh dozd"...... both in theivery and in politics. And no - unlike in America, in the rest of the world private banks do not act against the best interests of their own country and without government consent.

 

[Flint]

This is not islamic republic or third world. There are laws made for the good of the economy of the country that is to be followed. There is no such thing as having already paid the dues.

Umm, by "dues" I meant his $700,000 campaign contribution to Obama and 1.6 mil to Democrats. The mob call it protection money. I didn't think I had to elaborate.

 

[Flint]

If people/businesses didn't do all they could to keep their money, short of committing fraudulent acts, then they'd be stupid.

They can, and should be, sued by the share holders.

 

[Bi-honar]

And you know what will happen? They'll just find other ways. Sometimes I wonder why governments even bother. Well, actually, I know why, but I wonder why people in general still think such things work or are even beneficial.

There are ways to do this, but it requires a complete rethink of taxation in most Capitalist countries and a comprehensive system that is going to work will be extremely difficult to implement, primarily because of resistance from larger corporations that benefit from these "loopholes". Don't forget, they're the ones with the money and lobbyists to fight it and then fight it again in the courts if needs be.

One way to do it for example is by moving all corporate taxes to the point of sale (i.e. making it corporate tax a sales or VAT tax). In this case, you collect a percentage of revenue right up front and where it's being collected, rather than when and where profit is being reported. Of course, the critique of that system would be that companies that work in sectors with lower profit margins would suffer from this and companies in high margin sectors would be benefit from this. Although this may be initially true the system will have a tendency to reach an equilibrium, because the companies with higher margins will be forced to pass the saving to the end user and the lower margin industries will have to pass the burden to the end users eventually forcing an equilibrium based on demand and supply.

 

[beystr 2.0]

I do agree that fighting this..mean..moving money by the rich and powerful...is a pretty impossible task...so, myself ..have been more in favor of having the kind of laws or tax codes that keep money there where it was earned...so for starters I like Bihonar's taxing method..

Although..U.S. has an exceptional advantage to the rest of the world and that being .Dollar being the World Currency...it kind of protects U.S. in that..all dollars eventually make it back to U.S....bcuz everybody else needs them to purchase comodities..

But still..I'm in favor of lowest corporate tax as possible...Zero if I was the decision maker....

All said...I think there is a kind of tendency for every big money maker to want to hide their money from the immediate neighborhood...as an individual or a corporation...bcuz u never know when someone is gonna accuse an even the honest richman or his /her business of all kinds of stuff for having that sum...so heck if I knew there is a good way out of this..

 

[beystr 2.0]

and then again....I'm just baffelled on why it has come to a point where dealing with a sovreign gov. as in IRI has to be called money laundering.....I sure call this whole sanction an outright illegal act and just law of jungle...

There are tons of countries committing worse acts than IRI....U.S. and G.B. the major gangsters there..

 

[Kaz]

There are ways to do this, but it requires a complete rethink of taxation in most Capitalist countries and a comprehensive system that is going to work will be extremely difficult to implement, primarily because of resistance from larger corporations that benefit from these "loopholes". Don't forget, they're the ones with the money and lobbyists to fight it and then fight it again in the courts if needs be.

One way to do it for example is by moving all corporate taxes to the point of sale (i.e. making it corporate tax a sales or VAT tax). In this case, you collect a percentage of revenue right up front and where it's being collected, rather than when and where profit is being reported. Of course, the critique of that system would be that companies that work in sectors with lower profit margins would suffer from this and companies in high margin sectors would be benefit from this. Although this may be initially true the system will have a tendency to reach an equilibrium, because the companies with higher margins will be forced to pass the saving to the end user and the lower margin industries will have to pass the burden to the end users eventually forcing an equilibrium based on demand and supply.

The cost of taxes are pushed onto the consumer, the shareholder or the employees. You tax someone's payroll, they'll just pay the employees less or increase the product/service to offset that cost. How about we just abolish them and keep things above board?

There are certain rates which have been shown to not significantly affect business' willingness to pay them; unfortunately tax payers get greedy and think its their father's inheritance and demand more - and think they're right to.

 

[a123321r]

......