GG Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Except the guy from the town, the head of the tax office, said it isn't really a jump in companies moving there, but "We are not reckoning on an unusually strong boom, but a continual and sustainable growth on the scale of the last few years and decades," Jud said. Except that Jud's comment is totally out of place in the context of that paragraph. With the botom line being that if tax lawyers are advising companies to move from Bermuda & Cayman, there is fear. Which leads to yet another concern in this macroeconomic environment. Obama may be saying things to soothe your ears, but his actions are scaring the business community, and are not enticing anyone to step up and be the first to restart growth. At this point, management is content to ride things out, fire more people and hope for the best. Yet, we're in another quarter where the horizon for a recovery just got pushed out by another quarter. Want to lay down odds of what the story line will be in May? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 You didn't even remotely address my question. But I appreciate the condescension. Actually, I addressed your question. Not my fault you don't understand the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Except that Jud's comment is totally out of place in the context of that paragraph. With the botom line being that if tax lawyers are advising companies to move from Bermuda & Cayman, there is fear. Which leads to yet another concern in this macroeconomic environment. Obama may be saying things to soothe your ears, but his actions are scaring the business community, and are not enticing anyone to step up and be the first to restart growth. At this point, management is content to ride things out, fire more people and hope for the best. Yet, we're in another quarter where the horizon for a recovery just got pushed out by another quarter. Want to lay down odds of what the story line will be in May? I am waiting to see what the reaction is in a couple weeks after Geithner finally comes out with the fix-the-banks-plan. And not just the immediate reaction although that may be the longer term reaction, too. You know 100x more about this than me, but almost everything I read relates back to that and the uncertainty over it. Not that it's a bad plan but no one knows for sure what he is going to say (what the plan actually is). Even when he comes out with it, I won't know if it is a good plan or not, or whether it will work or not. No one will. Plus it seems to me that no one anywhere really knows all of what is going on, and there isn't any even minor consensus on how to fix it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Actually, I addressed your question. Not my fault you don't understand the answer. No you didn't! Not even close! I asked: WHAT MAKES AN AMERICAN COMPANY? Is it where they're headquartered? Is it where they were founded? Is it whose taxes they pay? Is it where they do the bulk of their business? WHAT MAKES AN AMERICAN COMPANY?- that's what I f-cking asked you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Again... Lets have chaos... Don't let them sell their products or services in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 No you didn't! Not even close! I asked: WHAT MAKES AN AMERICAN COMPANY? Is it where they're headquartered? Is it where they were founded? Is it whose taxes they pay? Is it where they do the bulk of their business? WHAT MAKES AN AMERICAN COMPANY?- that's what I f-cking asked you. From a tax law, it's any company that's incorporated in the US. So what's your next question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 No you didn't! Not even close! I asked: WHAT MAKES AN AMERICAN COMPANY? Is it where they're headquartered? Is it where they were founded? Is it whose taxes they pay? Is it where they do the bulk of their business? WHAT MAKES AN AMERICAN COMPANY?- that's what I f-cking asked you. The fact that you have to ask such a basic and obvious question is pretty pathetic. Are you really that uninformed and/or unable to conduct even the most basic research on the web? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Again... Lets have chaos... Don't let them sell their products or services in the US. Yes, chaos always works. Especially if it has the side benefit of amusing you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Coincidentally, after the first of what is supposed to be several stimulus bills was passed and I did the math on how much each taxpayer would owe when the bill comes due, I whimsically looked into emmigration. Switzerland has an interesting policy. Basically, it is this: - You can apply to be a citizen only after you are a long-time legal resident. - Other than being a student or something, the way to become a legal resident is as a businessman. For this, you have to have demonstrable financial resources, pay Swiss taxes, and set up a Swiss company employing at least one Swiss citizen. Gee, imagine that - an immigration policy which transfers wealth *into* the country and actually *generates* jobs for its citizens, instead of letting in poor people willing to work at lower wages than the current citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I am waiting to see what the reaction is in a couple weeks after Geithner finally comes out with the fix-the-banks-plan. And not just the immediate reaction although that may be the longer term reaction, too. You know 100x more about this than me, but almost everything I read relates back to that and the uncertainty over it. Not that it's a bad plan but no one knows for sure what he is going to say (what the plan actually is). Even when he comes out with it, I won't know if it is a good plan or not, or whether it will work or not. No one will. Plus it seems to me that no one anywhere really knows all of what is going on, and there isn't any even minor consensus on how to fix it all. The uncertainty isn't helping for sure, but in the mean time, there's less than subtle hints that the administration is serious about class warfare and wealth distribution. If that's the case, even if Geithner sings like Ryan Adams to Mandy Moore, we're all falling off a big tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The fact that you have to ask such a basic and obvious question is pretty pathetic. Are you really that uninformed and/or unable to conduct even the most basic research on the web? In the context underwhich it came up before, it didn't require any sort of fact finding, and the fact finding that WAS required would have involved me sifting through even more terminology and concepts that are foreign to me. So, as for being un-informed--yeah, fine if that's what you want to call it. But since this sort of knowledge has as much relevance to my life as the mating habits of koala bears, then I'd have to be a corporate/tax law hobbyist in order to be up to snuff on the ins and outs of this issue. So am I uninformed? Without question and without shame, abso-f-cking-lutely I'm uninformed. As for the original context under which the question arose--having DONE some research to followup on GG's terse respons--I'll now freely admit that the rationale for allowing companies to be incorporated in one geographic location while enjoying the tax shelters of ANOTHER geographic location involves an more thorough understanding than a simple internet search at work would allow, and a more thorough understanding than I currently have. But, since none of you can be bothered to explain WHY that's justifiable, or because none of you want to be exposed as the ignoramuses you might actually be on the subject, I'll just contently stay in the dark on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 In the context underwhich it came up before, it didn't require any sort of fact finding, and the fact finding that WAS required would have involved me sifting through even more terminology and concepts that are foreign to me. So, as for being un-informed--yeah, fine if that's what you want to call it. But since this sort of knowledge has as much relevance to my life as the mating habits of koala bears, then I'd have to be a corporate/tax law hobbyist in order to be up to snuff on the ins and outs of this issue. So am I uninformed? Without question and without shame, abso-f-cking-lutely I'm uninformed. As for the original context under which the question arose--having DONE some research to followup on GG's terse respons--I'll now freely admit that the rationale for allowing companies to be incorporated in one geographic location while enjoying the tax shelters of ANOTHER geographic location involves an more thorough understanding than a simple internet search at work would allow, and a more thorough understanding than I currently have. But, since none of you can be bothered to explain WHY that's justifiable, or because none of you want to be exposed as the ignoramuses you might actually be on the subject, I'll just contently stay in the dark on this one. Are you an only child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Are you an only child? I'm the poster boy for only children. Make no mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 In the context underwhich it came up before, it didn't require any sort of fact finding, and the fact finding that WAS required would have involved me sifting through even more terminology and concepts that are foreign to me. So, as for being un-informed--yeah, fine if that's what you want to call it. But since this sort of knowledge has as much relevance to my life as the mating habits of koala bears, then I'd have to be a corporate/tax law hobbyist in order to be up to snuff on the ins and outs of this issue. So am I uninformed? Without question and without shame, abso-f-cking-lutely I'm uninformed. As for the original context under which the question arose--having DONE some research to followup on GG's terse respons--I'll now freely admit that the rationale for allowing companies to be incorporated in one geographic location while enjoying the tax shelters of ANOTHER geographic location involves an more thorough understanding than a simple internet search at work would allow, and a more thorough understanding than I currently have. But, since none of you can be bothered to explain WHY that's justifiable, or because none of you want to be exposed as the ignoramuses you might actually be on the subject, I'll just contently stay in the dark on this one. Here's a hint, when you don't know a topic, don't come off as a know-it all and them cower when you get exposed. If you had a demonstrated posting history that was inquisitive in nature, rather than an opinionated one, then the responses would be much different as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I'm the poster boy for only children. Make no mistake. Well. I had a feeling you were as that post above came across, to me at least, as you being a Brat. Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Here's a hint, when you don't know a topic, don't come off as a know-it all and them cower when you get exposed. If you had a demonstrated posting history that was inquisitive in nature, rather than an opinionated one, then the responses would be much different as well. So I'm not allowed to ask questions if I have opinions? I have to choose one or the other? Well, since we all pull our knowledge from the EXACT same sources/philosophies, then that puts a halt to just about every thread here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Here's a hint, when you don't know a topic, don't come off as a know-it all and them cower when you get exposed. If you had a demonstrated posting history that was inquisitive in nature, rather than an opinionated one, then the responses would be much different as well. I guess I wasnt the only one!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well. I had a feeling you were as that post above came across, to me at least, as you being a Brat. Thanks for the clarification. I won't deny my tendancy to be reactionary, it's something I'm truly working hard to curb. However, I do find it odd that when somebody comes here to pose a question, they're more likely to get ridiculed than honored with an answer. I think we overlook the whole point of message board we when (yes, I'm including myself in this group because I've been guilty too) behave this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I won't deny my tendancy to be reactionary, it's something I'm truly working hard to curb. However, I do find it odd that when somebody comes here to pose a question, they're more likely to get ridiculed than honored with an answer. I think we overlook the whole point of message board we when (yes, I'm including myself in this group because I've been guilty too) behave this way. Which part of "posting history" is giving you the biggest trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Which part of "posting history" is giving you the biggest trouble? Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts