And no, it’s not primarily because of low profits, it’s partly because of a big tax credit, and partly because of shifting revenue to offshore domiciles. So on the one hand, they’re taking 10 billion from the taxpayer, on the other hand they’re stiffing the government. Last year they paid 6 billion in taxes worldwide, this year they’ll pay 14 million. You, the taxpayer, will make up the shortfall, one way or the other.
This sort of tax shifting has to end. The simplest way to do it is to say that no matter where you pay taxes, you make up the difference in the States. So if the rate is 10% somewhere else, and 30% in the US, you pay the 20% difference to the States. Make it so that folks can’t set up separate companies to avoid taxes, and make some treaties with other countries. Race to the bottom economic competition needs to end—it isn’t healthy when southern states give huge tax breaks to lure companies and it isn’t healthy when it’s countries competing with each other to see how low they can go, and to heck with providing services for their citizens.
Another possibility is to tax all transfers of money into the US. You may be able to pay lower taxes overseas, but if you try and bring the money into the country, you get charged the tax you should have paid in the first place.
Either way, it needs to be dealt with. As for Goldman Sachs, this sort of tax dodging looks about as good as everything else they’ve done since their ex-CEO, Hank Paulson, took over at Treasury.



23 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Exciting. Does this mean we are all going to pay a 1% tax now?
Epic Optics Fail.
From the link:
I suppose it would be too much to expect that the IRS might take a very close look at these tax returns, including the supporting documentation for them. After all, if *my* return appeared “a little extreme,” it’s going to trip certain flags that will guarantee that at a minimum, my computational skills will get a bit of a going-over from the Revenooers.
Goldman Sachs has a bunch of highly-paid professionals who go over all this stuff. I’m sure it’s totally fine and no-one needs to check it.
*waves hand mysteriously*
These are not the returns you’re looking for…
That would be the same bunch of highly paid professionals that led them into such a position that they needed $10,000,000,000.00 from the federal government?
Given that they just paid out $10,900,000,000 in employee compensation and benefits — see the link in the post — the moniker “highly paid” is not a misnomer. It’s the “professionals” label that I have difficulty accepting.
But if we did that, there will be no more asset bubbles. There would be no more go-go Wall Street innovation. No more creative destruction and churning that is only good, in it ineffable indefinable unregulated free market way. What would happen to the economy? What would happen to growth? We would all be poor, worrying about getting any old kind of stinking low pay job, and wondering how to scrap through the next year!
What would happen to that hellacious greedy market Zen that makes us all wealthy?
Let’s see *you* get 10 billion dollars for running a company into the ground, smart guy.
“Creative destruction” refers to finding imaginative new ways to make companies fail, right?
And wasn’t the plan all along to have no accountability? SO?
you make jokes but Ian’s tax ideas lead to the New World Order. How do you think he plans to collect those oversea taxes from overseas? You betcha. Black helicopters.
Then those black helicopters will fly over America and give the dough to Obama supporters, and take your guns away. While ex-Obama campaign workers move into your house.
OT, but interesting:
Woops! Meant to leave a quote, but link works better.
Now you’re just being ridiculous.
Helicopters don’t have enough range.
heh heh heh. You liberals are such easy marks. Those special black helicopters do. Did you think those were just any kind of old black helicoper? They have special powers perfectly designed for my conspiracy theories.
On a more serious note (OAMSN), an interesting article on fate so far of our bailout money:
Dude, where’s my $700 billion?
Congress handed Wall Street a huge wad of cash to jump-start the economy. It didn’t work — so where did all that money go?
By Mike Madden
http://www.salon.com/news/feat…..0_billion/
Ans:
“A lot of it is, apparently, just sitting in the bank.”
Some passages about Geithner are disturbing. If Obama needs another Republican in his cabinet, why not Blair from FDIC for Secretary of the Treasury? She might be much better.
Can we get Specter to block Geithner? He is in the mood to make a splash in the news next year, it seems.
Is Blair a Repbublican? If so, Obama should go for Blair for Secty of Treasury. It still wouldn’t make the Republican Party’s Official Wingnut Rulers happy, since she surely would not be the right kind of Republican, for some reason or other.
She is. She’s the only example I can think of where a Republican appointee would actually be preferable.
Okay, two, if you consider that Pat Fitzgerald is technically a Republican, IIRC.
Thanks. Now I have a pesky needling “lefty progressive” question for the Obama internet dialog thing. Why didn’t he pick a Republican who might very well be more progressive than some of his Democratic nominees, and would also fulfil his pledage of a bipartisan cabinet.
It will get the same informative response as the legalize weed question, probably.
eg!
you GOT that kinda money????
wow
i’d have NEVER guessed.
Well this is a nice thought, but it ain’t ever gonna happen. :-)
New post (Warning: Bring brain bleach)
Funniest snark of the day. And great catch, Ian. What this shows is that there is zero reform going on in the financial industry. They will play these games again and again every chance they get everywhere they can until they are stopped by punitive fines or jail time.
EPUland but …
a link for Ian:
re CDS
LMAO.
On the issue of taxes and Bank of America, a company in the article a couple of days ago, no one mentioned the big tax break Bank of America is getting when they purchased CountryWide and Merrill Lynch. Going against existing tax law, Bank of America (and other companies) will be able to use the losses of the acquired companies to reduce their tax bill according to new rule by Treasury. This was discussed on Bill Moyers show on public TV last week by the lady at Georgetown Law (Center).