Panama papers: China censors online discussion

[Anonymous]

It's unreasonable to expect the very rich to voluntarily give the government millions and millions. Since it won't happen let's find a top amount that deincentivises taking that capital outside Canada.

Tax the shit out of money taken out of the country and set incentives for money kept in the country.

Countries that have done that in that past have seen capital return or even foreign inflows. It's a far more effective than chasing money from island to island in the Caribbean.

[Anonymous]

You realize taxation is based on income right?



My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.

No, I did not know that.



Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.

Hmmm, that might be a bit low Herm. Take someone like PK Subban who makes $10 million a year in player salary not including endorsements and appearances. If he were to pay $250 k a year in federal taxes not including the Quebec portion he would be basically paying taxes for himself and about nine other regular working people. It is not 33%, but nobody can say he is not paying his fair share. It's a number he can live with and still sends a lot of money to Ottawa.

[Anonymous]

So you really think the cost of collecting is the same as what we'd lose in tax revenues?

No, but the value added of having that money working in Canada instead of the Cayman Islands is good for all of us.

Paying CRA employees is having money working in Canada.  Closing taxation loopholes makes less work and keeps money here.

Having more employees than is necessary at the CRA is not good for taxpayers. Closing loopholes only makes sense if the taxes are not astronomical as you and Peaches want. If you over charge people millions of dollars just for the privilege of living here they will not be living here. You lose bright minds, capital/investment and tax dollars. Lots of places in this world will be only too happy to give them and their capital residence. Punitive, excessive taxation is a lose - lose situation.

[Twenty Dollars]

This has been going on for some time. Lots of people come to this country thinking that they can hide and hide their $$. No way. CR is closely tied to the US, which includes the IRS. I've had friends who tried to hide, only to lose their property, bank accounts, social security benefits. Very stupid. Panama is another story. Friend Mark made millions on the homes shopping network. He did manage to move his money to CR. He quickly moved that money to Panama, relinquished his citizenship. Obtained Irish citizenship, still living in Panama near his cash. All this before they could nail him. Lucky fucker. What fool would give up US citizenship through?

[Anonymous]

We have a mix of people in our church..



From the unemployed to contractors making millions annually..



They are all required to tithe, but the affluent are paying the bills and salaries of the congregation while helping members of the fellowship, more than ever now..



They also decide what initiatives get funded and by how much whether it is missions or in the community..



And they do this willingly and joyfully..



But I doubt they feel the same way about giving to the various levels of government that they are forced to pay and have little say in how funds are spent..



It's too bad governments are not run like a church fellowship

[Anonymous]

This has been going on for some time. Lots of people come to this country thinking that they can hide and hide their $$. No way. CR is closely tied to the US, which includes the IRS. I've had friends who tried to hide, only to lose their property, bank accounts, social security benefits. Very stupid. Panama is another story. Friend Mark made millions on the homes shopping network. He did manage to move his money to CR. He quickly moved that money to Panama, relinquished his citizenship. Obtained Irish citizenship, still living in Panama near his cash. All this before they could nail him. Lucky fucker. What fool would give up US citizenship through?

CR  is not a true tax haven.  According to Investopedia it is more like the Switzerland of Central America. They have been very successful in attracting foreign corporations to establish a presence. They have twenty year exemptions from any taxation to many corporations. Corporate entities that are required to pay taxes pay extremely low rates and are generally exempt from taxes on interest, capital gains or dividend income.



Offshore companies incorporated in Costa Rica do not have to file any financial reports with Costa Rican tax authorities. They are not required to disclose the names of owners to the registrar of companies.



Costa Rica tightly protects the privacy of offshore banking. Money or other financial assets can be transferred in or out of Costa Rica without any limitation on the amount – and without having to disclose the source of funds. It's this last one that has seen CR in the past be a laundering centre for the proceeds of organized crime. But, I hear they are changing that now.



I would set up in Panama or Anguilla myself.

[Anonymous]

You may think I just made up the shit about tumbrels and lampposts and torches, but it was widely reported last year that in a speech to other 1%ers, a 1%er warned the others about the probable outcome of continuing to widen the income inequality gap.

Was he referring to declining wages or low government revenue>

It's not quite that simple or binary.  It's a long article (but not a speech as I erroneously recalled) which I found well worth the read.



http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014">//http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

[RW]

You realize taxation is based on income right?



My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.

No, I did not know that.



Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.

Hmmm, that might be a bit low Herm. Take someone like PK Subban who makes $10 million a year in player salary not including endorsements and appearances. If he were to pay $250 k a year in federal taxes not including the Quebec portion he would be basically paying taxes for himself and about nine other regular working people. It is not 33%, but nobody can say he is not paying his fair share. It's a number he can live with and still sends a lot of money to Ottawa.

But he makes more than 9 times as much.  I'd settle for him paying what a normal working person makes per dollar.  Having money shouldn't entitle him to pay less per dollar than the working class.

[Anonymous]

You realize taxation is based on income right?



My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.

No, I did not know that.



Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.

Hmmm, that might be a bit low Herm. Take someone like PK Subban who makes $10 million a year in player salary not including endorsements and appearances. If he were to pay $250 k a year in federal taxes not including the Quebec portion he would be basically paying taxes for himself and about nine other regular working people. It is not 33%, but nobody can say he is not paying his fair share. It's a number he can live with and still sends a lot of money to Ottawa.

But he makes more than 9 times as much.  I'd settle for him paying what a normal working person makes per dollar.  Having money shouldn't entitle him to pay less per dollar than the working class.

Of course you would settle for that. It's not your money, it's his. And just because he earns more why should he be charged more for everything? Contributions to EI max out why should taxattion not have a ceiling. Paying the equivalent of ten or more other regular workers' plus his own is more than fair---it's generous.



Peaches, that article was not well worth the read? It did not come close to getting at the state of the US economy today. Take a look at this link for an accurate account of what is actually happening in the market place today and why.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty">http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-0 ... at-poverty">http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty

[Anonymous]

Peaches, that article was not well worth the read? It did not come close to getting at the state of the US economy today. Take a look at this link for an accurate account of what is actually happening in the market place today and why.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty">http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-0 ... at-poverty">http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty

I'll read your article when I have time.  However, the article I linked was not intended to be about the state of the US economy today.  I am not even persuaded that the state of the US economy even matters a lot to the plutocrats to whom the article is addressed.  



I'll also add, re the rest of that post, that one reason income tax rates are progressive is because all other taxes to which we are subject...tend to be REgressive.  It's been argued that even a flat tax will not correct the overall regressive nature of taxes.

[Anonymous]

Peaches, that article was not well worth the read? It did not come close to getting at the state of the US economy today. Take a look at this link for an accurate account of what is actually happening in the market place today and why.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty">http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-0 ... at-poverty">http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty

I'll read your article when I have time.  However, the article I linked was not intended to be about the state of the US economy today.  I am not even persuaded that the state of the US economy even matters a lot to the plutocrats to whom the article is addressed.  



I'll also add, re the rest of that post, that one reason income tax rates are progressive is because all other taxes to which we are subject...tend to be REgressive.  It's been argued that even a flat tax will not correct the overall regressive nature of taxes.

That article I linked tears to shreds Hanauer's entire eat the rich plutocrat case. It exposes it as nothing more than the empty slogan and distraction that it is.  



So you do acknowledge that the upper income earners in the US pay the majority of income taxes? But, it's a misnomer to claim that flat taxes are regressive. I would argue that progressive taxation without limitation is the most regressive form of taxation a nation can inflict upon itself.

[RW]

You realize taxation is based on income right?



My dad always says he wishes he paid a million dollars in taxes.

No, I did not know that.



Charging some people tens of millions of dollars for the same services that most people pay tens of thousands for is grossly unfair. Income tax should be capped at about $100,000. I do not blame anyone for protecting their money from greedy gouging governments.

Hmmm, that might be a bit low Herm. Take someone like PK Subban who makes $10 million a year in player salary not including endorsements and appearances. If he were to pay $250 k a year in federal taxes not including the Quebec portion he would be basically paying taxes for himself and about nine other regular working people. It is not 33%, but nobody can say he is not paying his fair share. It's a number he can live with and still sends a lot of money to Ottawa.

But he makes more than 9 times as much.  I'd settle for him paying what a normal working person makes per dollar.  Having money shouldn't entitle him to pay less per dollar than the working class.

Of course you would settle for that. It's not your money, it's his. And just because he earns more why should he be charged more for everything? Contributions to EI max out why should taxattion not have a ceiling. Paying the equivalent of ten or more other regular workers' plus his own is more than fair---it's generous.



Peaches, that article was not well worth the read? It did not come close to getting at the state of the US economy today. Take a look at this link for an accurate account of what is actually happening in the market place today and why.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty">http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-0 ... at-poverty">http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/other-side-hanauer-plutocrat-poverty

Wait.  Why should it have a ceiling?  It doesn't for anyone else who doesn't make a boat load of cash.  Why should rich people be exempt because they make a lot of money?

[Anonymous]

If you put a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat, it'll never flinch. It'll sit there until the water is boiling and its little froggy hide is cooked. But if you try to drop the same frog into already boiling water, it'll instantly jump right out.



It works the same for taxation policy.



"Progressive" politicians think they can jack taxes up by large amounts – particularly on "the rich" – and the fat froggies will just sit there and take it.



But taxpayers are like the frog dropped in boiling water. Raise their taxes too suddenly and they bolt.



Take the example of Calgary billionaire Murray Edwards.



Edwards is the chairman of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL), one of the four largest oilsands producers. On corporate reports, he used to list his residence as "Calgary/Banff." This year he has begun listing it as "London, UK."



Maybe Edwards truly does prefer life in London over life closer to his business interests (oil, Rocky Mountain ski resorts, real estate, the Calgary Flames). But consider this: between federal tax hikes on the "rich" and Alberta provincial hikes on those making over $125,000 a year, top effective tax rate in Alberta has gone from 40.25% in 2015 to 48% this year.



That's a rise of one-fifth in a year.



And that's just on income. That doesn't include the effects of GST, PST or HST, property taxes, excise taxes, gas-guzzler taxes, tire recycling "fees" and a myriad of other taxes and government charges.



I never thought I'd see the day when Britain was viewed as a tax haven for Canadians. But according to Mark Milke, the author of Tax Me I'm Canadian!, if Edwards is making around $50 million a year, his combined federal-provincial tax bite this year would be $24 million versus $19.5 million last year.



So as Milke points out, "instead of a total of nearly $100 million in personal income taxes (from Edwards) over the next four years, the Alberta and federal governments will receive zero."



They couldn't be satisfied with $80 million from Edwards. They had to try to squeeze out $100 million. Now they get nothing.



That's why last December, the Toronto-based, economic think tank, the C.D. Howe Institute, estimated the federal move to soak the "rich," could lead to a drop of federal revenues of $4 billion.



Last week, a national newspaper clucked that there could be a "reverse brain drain" if Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidency in November – talented professionals and entrepreneurs escaping to Canada from the States.



Fat chance. Canada now has among the highest tax rates in the industrialized world on innovators, investors, creators and entrepreneurs.



We might like to comfort ourselves with smug thoughts about how much more morally superior Canada would be to a Trump America. Yeah, maybe. But high-income individuals would keep a lot more of their earnings in the United States of Donald.



I have objections to Murray Edwards.



Last November, when Alberta Premier Rachel Notley was announcing her economy-crippling Climate Leadership Plan, there was the CNRL chairman standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the socialist leader proclaiming her green plan "a significant step forward for Alberta."



What we didn't know then was that he had quietly negotiated a $1.50 per barrel "output allocation" (read: subsidy) for CNRL to soften the blow on his company's bottomline.



And now that he has done his bit to convince Albertans the green plan is a good idea, with its annual $3-billion tax on every thing that moves, he has left the province to avoid the consequences.



Still, Edwards won't be the last Canadian to seek greener tax pastures elsewhere.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/04/05/tax-jolts-can-send-high-earners-abroad">http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/04/05/ta ... ers-abroad">http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/04/05/tax-jolts-can-send-high-earners-abroad

The province of Alberta and the federal government got greedy and it ends up costing all Canadians. Businesses get greedy, they lose customers. The same principle applies to governments that do that too.

[ELPHUPPHY]

Reading some of these poasts is entertaining... Cap income tax at $100,000? Really? So that the rich get even richer? What kind of elitist shit is that? I agree that the US and other country's tax structure is befuckered, but tht is easily solved with a flat tax rate. Make it 15% for the sake of argument. Everyone who makes money kicks in 15% to the nasty assed gummint scum for roads, programs, etc. No cap, up or down. Everyone pays that percentage, no loopholes, no exceptions.



Now tell me how that's not fair?

[Anonymous]

Reading some of these poasts is entertaining... Cap income tax at $100,000? Really? So that the rich get even richer? What kind of elitist shit is that? I agree that the US and other country's tax structure is befuckered, but tht is easily solved with a flat tax rate. Make it 15% for the sake of argument. Everyone who makes money kicks in 15% to the nasty assed gummint scum for roads, programs, etc. No cap, up or down. Everyone pays that percentage, no loopholes, no exceptions.



Now tell me how that's not fair?

I really like your idea of a flat tax. It is the best of all possibilities.



Clearly progressive taxation without limits is not working. I think what Herman is getting at is why should one person pay so much more for the same services that another person pays so much less for? Does a rich person go to the hospital 100 times more? But they are asked to pay 100 times more for the same service. I look at it like ordering food and asking what the price will be? The person taking the order says that all depends on your income. Nobody likes to be over charged. And the consequences of gouging some people is they take their money to countries where it is treated with respect.