[Newsbot]

Title: �13tn: hoard hidden from taxman by global elite | Business | The Observer
Category: Business
Posted By: xerxes
Date: 2012-07-21 18:33:20

[CrazyNewfie]

Something needs to change!

[Zipperfish]

Right, you're in charge of that, then.

[Prof_Chomsky]

Well, now that they found it levy a one time "austerity" tax... If it's okay for the working man to have wages, healthcare and retirement slashed during a fiscal crisis it's clearly ok to nail these guys too.

[andyt]

Just lower taxes on the rich. Have a flat rate so the rich pay the same percentage as the poor. Then they would leave their money at home. While it wouldn't be good for govt income, it would make the banks rich, and that, as we know, would trickle down to the poor people.

[Prof_Chomsky]

The very fact this isn't the top article shows why it will never change. People are either too stupid or too apathetic to realize this single event effects every single aspect of their lives in an extremely negative fashion.

They're STEALING from you... Now at least be aware even if you're too lazy to change it...

[OnTheIce]

It's been going on forever.

Why is an issue now?

[Freakinoldguy]

$1:

According to its 2009 accounts, The Tax Justice Network International Secretariat Limited is a UK company controlled by Tax Justice Network asbl, a Belgian charity.

Neat.

A charity that likely pays no taxes bitching about other people hiding their tax money.

Here's a thought. When you start paying taxes then you can start bitching about taxes. As far as I'm concerned it's just like voting, if you don't vote or pay taxes then you have no right to complain.

As for the rest of us well, we should be up in arms.

But the only way you're ever going to stop this is to get every country on the planet to pass a law that prohibits the moving of monies to avoid taxes and as we all know that ain't gonna happen, since alot of these countries benefit greatly from this windfall of unlawful cash.

[andyt]

Here''s information about their funding. Do they really sound like ripoff artists to you? http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_con ... catart=103

You wan charities to pay taxes? On what? Companies pay taxes on net income. What net income do charities have?

[DanSC]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

They're STEALING from you... Now at least be aware even if you're too lazy to change it...

They may be exploiting loopholes and not paying their fair share, but it isn't stealing.

[Zipperfish]

I would define charity as feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and relieving the suffering of the afflicted. If you're not doing that, you're not a charity. That goes for all these thinly-veiled advocacy groups. Why is the Fraser Institute, an organization that would probably find it efficient to feed the homeless to the hungry, considered a charity? /rant

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Here''s information about their funding. Do they really sound like ripoff artists to you? http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_con ... catart=103

You wan charities to pay taxes? On what? Companies pay taxes on net income. What net income do charities have?

They may not be ripoff artists but they are in reality a corporation using the designation of Charity to further their own agenda who, since they pay no taxes don't really have a vested interest in changing the all taxation systems around the world.

As to your question about me wanting all charities to pay taxes. Well the answer is no. I only want the ones who operate as corporations with high paid CEO's, Boards of Governmors and lots of lackey employees to pay since most of them take a good portion of their donations and use them to pay these bloated salarires.

$1:

Example:

In 2007 they 93249 Pounds out of which they paid cost of sales of 44669 pounds for a gross profit of 44580 pounds. They then paid out 45090 pounds for administrative expenses leaving them with an operating loss of 510 pounds?

So leaving out the cost of sales they paid themselves almost half of their monies in adminstrative fees.

So where did the monies go to other than pushing their own agenda and paying themselves and they're a charity............sure.

And now I wait for the typical reply about how charities need to pay these asshat corporate wogs large amounts of money to administer their programs or they don't get the best people. Kind of sounds like the government when they say that doesn't it.

Face it most charties and religions now are big business and should be paying taxes, especially since most of their donations end up going to administration and operating expenses. This organization is no different.

[Unsound]

DanSC DanSC:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

They're STEALING from you... Now at least be aware even if you're too lazy to change it...

They may be exploiting loopholes and not paying their fair share, but it isn't stealing.

Are they just exploiting loopholes? Or are they cheating on their taxes? That's an honest question, cause I don't know enough about this issue to know tha answer.

[andyt]

Unsound Unsound:

DanSC DanSC:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

They're STEALING from you... Now at least be aware even if you're too lazy to change it...

They may be exploiting loopholes and not paying their fair share, but it isn't stealing.

Are they just exploiting loopholes? Or are they cheating on their taxes? That's an honest question, cause I don't know enough about this issue to know tha answer.

They're cheating on their taxes. Otherwise they would declare that money as they are required to do by law. Same as our law. This goes well beyond exploiting loopholes. If they were exploiting loopholes they wouldn't have to hide the money offshore, it would be theirs legally, free and clear. There's already plenty of that going on, which is why Warren Buffet paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. But he didn't have to hide that money offshore.

How could you even ask that question?

[Unsound]

I asked the question because i think it's important for everyone to know what we're talking about and if these questions don't get asked, and answered, then it's easy to weasel out of a positions that's proving itself hard to defend. ie saying they're not stealing. If we don't agree at the beinginng that they're breaking actual laws, rather than just exploiting loophole of dubious ethicality, then we're having 2 different conversations.