For those interested in candidate transparency, the good news is, Mitt Romney agreed to release his 2011 tax returns on Friday afternoon. The bad news is, 2011 isn't one of the important years in need of scrutiny. The worse news is, this limited disclosure actually raises as many questions as it answers.
Why do Romney's returns identify the United States as a "foreign country"? (Imagine if Obama's tax returns made this mistake.) Why is Romney investing so heavily in the nation's "number one geopolitical foe"? Of the 813 pages, why do two-thirds relate to overseas investments?
The Obama campaign remained on the offensive over the returns over the weekend, releasing this video.
Of particular interest to me, though, are the investments in the Cayman Islands. Team Romney published an online FAQ that coincided with the release of the 2011 returns that argued the candidate isn't evading American taxes with his offshore accounts.
"[T]he investments by the blind trusts in funds established in the Cayman Islands or other jurisdictions are taxed in the very same way they would be if the shares were held in the US rather than through a Cayman fund," the FAQ reads. "No taxes are evaded or reduced."
Something doesn't add up here. Why in the world would Romney stash cash in a notorious tax haven for no reason? Putting aside the blind-trust canard -- as Chris Hayes told Rachel on the show the other night, the trust is run by Romney's personal attorney, and really isn't "blind" at all -- if offshore Cayman accounts have nothing to do with evading or reducing taxes, why would he bother?
As it turns out, Team Romney is playing a misleading semantics game.
Timothy Noah did a nice job getting to the bottom of this, noting a Douglas Holz-Eakin piece in National Review, explaining that businesses put money into Cayman accounts so they're "outside the reach of the IRS." As Tim explained:
Now, it's my understanding that the IRS is in business to collect taxes. So if you want your money to be "outside the reach of the IRS" that means you don't want the IRS to take it away. How can Holz-Eakin and Romney claim otherwise?
It turns out they're playing word games. The taxes you evade by putting your money in the Caymans aren't your own personal income taxes, but your offshore investment fund's corporate income taxes.... In other words, the Romneys aren't evading income taxes by putting their money in the Caymans. The fund they put their money into is evading taxes by parking itself in the Cayman Islands. As a result, that fund (and therefore the Romneys) get to keep more of the profits. Why evade taxes when you can get somebody to do it for you?
It's a clumsy ruse, and like far too much of Romney's rhetoric, it's predicated on the assumption that voters won't know the difference between fact and fiction.
Update: In 2010, Romney's running mate referred to the Cayman Islands as "the place you hide your money."
Leave a Comment:
Friends, I've said it a few times, so forgive the repetition, but...
When looking at a Romney answer, EVERY WORD HE CHOOSES IS IMPORTANT. He doesn't use a single word mistakenly. That's why he works so hard for answers. This guy parses every phrase he says in order to sound like he's saying one thing, while really saying another.
I'm guessing "I like to fire people" wasn't such a carefully chosen message. But I'll agree that his campaign advisers try to torture even the simplest words.
VeryVerySad:
"This guy parses every phrase he says in order to sound like he's saying one thing, while really saying another."
FUBARRomney parses his words very carefully so he can convince himself that he isn't lying.
VeryVerySad, I agree with Romney wording. Listen to hear if he is saying, "a social security system" or "the Social Security System" or "a medicare plan" or the Medicare Plan"
Tom51- Yes. One of my repetitions of this "parsing" comment was pointing out that Romney and Ryan are very careful with using "a" before saying "Medicare plan". He says nothing - NOTHING - accidentally (when he knows he's being recorded;-) ).That makes his out and out lying all the more significant, and makes Steve's "Mendacity Watch" all the more important. Mitt's one of those guys who is the definition of mendacious. He can say something that is technically true, but completely misleading to 99% of those who hear him. He's running a campaign based on deception.
DanP- If you remember, the full statement was "I like to fire people who provide services to me." It makes him sound callous, but it's not the kind of parsing I'm really talking about. Like Tom51 points out, it's choosing the article, preposition or pronoun in order to mislead the listener that he's consistently engaged in.
Dan_p, I think the hiring and firing talk by Romney was about picking and choosing your health care. Romney misses the point in not realizing that so many people like me have no choice in health care plans. These plans are provided by our employers and it is not an option to not take that one.
"The fund they put their money into is evading taxes by parking itself in the Cayman Islands."
This could be fun.
Romney didn't fire anyone. The company he was in charge of fired people.
Romney didn't pass "Romneycare". The Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed Romneycare.
Romney won't cut your Medicare benefits. It's the voucher that will cut your benefits
Romney didn't not pay taxes. His money didn't not pay taxes on his behalf.
Romney/Ryan. No responsibility left unshirked.
largenose FTW
Harry Reid didn't lie about no taxes for 10 years, his mouth did.
Ah, but we don't know if Reid lied, now do we? Since Romney won't release any of those tax returns, the only person who knows for sure is Romney.
Why is he refusing to release those returns? What's he hiding?
Provide evidence that shows Harry Reid "lied."
In order for us to know whether or not something is a lie that means we have to know what is true. Since we don't know yet what is true about Mitt Romney's tax returns we cannot assume whether Reid is lying or telling the truth.
I've already stated I'm sure Reid is lying, but the difference here is that I'm not asserting it as a fact- I'm asserting it as an opinion. Remember people belief =/= fact.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but money in the Caymans sounds exactly like a 401k. Once it's there it accrues without US tax. But once it's withdrawn it gets taxed at income tax rates. Cap gains rates do not apply.
Not so sinister it seems.
Except I can put $22K per year into my 401K and Rmoney can put whatever he wants into his Cayman account. Perhaps not an entirely fair comparison?
Of course it's not sinister, Blanks. He sends his money to the Caymans because it really does prefer the island breezes and the laid back lifestyle.
Right, just like a 401K...Except for the contribution limits, tax penalties for early withdrawal, and the fact that it is not, actually, a 401K.
A careful reading of the article will reveal that Romney ALREADY received his benefit for these shenanagins in the form of a greater share of profits due to the taxes evaded. The IRS has no recourse on that.
Excuse me, that should be taxes "avoided", not taxes "evaded". One is smart, the other isn't.
You can't stick corporate profit in a 401k shooter. Come on. If you're going to troll around here, try harder. Too many smart people.
And even then, you don't want to bring up that comparison. Why? A normal person can only stack up 250k into a 401k. How come your candidate has millions and millions of dollars in his? How did he get around those rules? Why hasn't that been reported to the IRS. Why don't the American People who he wants to be 'hired' by have information from him on this?
Consider yourself 'corrected'. ;)
"e·vade (-vd)
v. e·vad·ed, e·vad·ing, e·vades
v.tr.
1. To escape or avoid by cleverness or deceit: evade arrest."
Emphasis mine. But really, Shooter, feel free to grasp at any straw you like.
Actually Blankman, it is evaded, cause while he's smart enough to park them "off-shore" - he's also evading paying taxes to the IRS and since the IRS doesn't have jurisdiction - he IS cheating US all!
Much as you try you cannot defend the indefensible.
Why the Swiss account? Was Romney a participant in the amnesty for fessing up?
How much of the Cayman money would be paid out to a US taxpayer or will it be paid to other overseas entities?
Obama 2012
Romney 1040
IRS defines tax avoidance as any scheme to reduce your tax burden that has the blessings of Congress annd the Tax Codes. Tax evasion is defined as an illegal, or fraudulent attempt at avoidance, going beyond what the Tax Code allows.
Also the difference between the Caymans and a 401(k) is that IRS does require you to eventually withdraw the 401(k) monies, and pay taxes sometime in the future. Cayman money can be transfered or even spent outside the US without ever coming to the US to be taxed. If they are half ways intelligent, Mitt's great, great-grandchildren may someday be living off the interest from money Mitt hid, with IRS still waiting to collect the income taxes due on the principle. In fact that is the whole point of the GOP proposals for VATs or national sales taxes; that would allow all un-taxed income to come into the US as new money.
Then Romney's grandchildren will have to spend the Cayman money overseas, because if it ever comes back it will be taxed. That's his option, just like it's Apple Computer's or KFC's.
You're also assuming the Cayman money wasn't taxed before it went to the Caymans, I doubt it, that would be illegal.
As a private citizen, you have all sorts of options open to you.
As someone seeking to prove that he believes in the country and seeking control over the "bully pulpit" which often needs to be used to persuade such companies to invest in the US instead of prey on it, the standard is a little higher.
It is this way in all professions. A grossly overweight doctor is going to have a very hard time convincing his patient to lose a few pounds to improve his heart health, even though being grossly overweight is by no means illegal. That's his option. But, it does affect his career.
Romney has chosen, time and again, to prey upon the hard work of the American people, extracting all possible profits, and hide them overseas. He has chosen to lowball estimates of value of stocks placed in his 401k (the real one) so it can hold many millions of dollars instead of thousands. It's all legal, we assume, but that doesn't mean it qualifies him for any elected office. As a point of fact, the vast majority of people, when confronted with the facts of his money grubbing, tend to judge it as disqualifying for elected office.
I don't see where you read that. I personally assume that all money has been taxed a number of times. It doesn't hurt the feelings of money to be taxed multiple times. Let go of that particular conservative talking point; it isn't based in real economics but in the hyper-simplified elementary-school-level cartoon economics that make for reasonably sounding sound bites. In the real world, it is meaningless. Every dollar has taxes assessed against it many many times between being minted by the treasury and eventually retired. The bills are tough; they can take it.
On the other hand, you are correct to point out that we have no idea of the provenance of the funds in those Cayman Island funds, because Romney refuses to disclose that. It is, now that you bring it up, quite likely that they were never taxed in the US. But, again, I don't see how that is pertinent to this conversation at all.
The point is, those funds are in the Cayman Islands and not in a US-based fund because their administrators will not be taxed. That makes the funds really cheap to operate, and materially benefits Romney. This is, absolutely, tax avoidance. No matter how many times a particular Benjamin Franklin portrait has had taxes assessed against its transfer, that note is sitting in the Cayman Islands instead of in a US bank solely to avoid having taxes assessed against it again.
I'm no Mitt Romney supporter, but a semantic clarification is in order.
Tax avoidance is what we all do legally. There's nothing wrong with it per se.
Tax EVASION is a crime.
When Romney says that "no taxes are evaded or reduced" in the Caymans, that's a bit less than half of the truth. No taxes are necessarily EVADED in the Caymans. But plenty of taxes are both avoided and reduced at the corporate level, as the post points out.
You're right, but the issue with Mitt is that he uses the absolute edges of the law to legally, but not necessarily ethically, avoid taxes. The reason it's relevant is because it shows how the tax code has been catering to the wealthy by giving them exotic ways to avoid their share of taxation that aren't available to the average taxpayer.
Tax evasion is a crime only if you get caught and the republicans don't create a 'tax amnesty' program to get around it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/what-romneys-hiding-its-t_b_1908104.html
In 2008, the Swiss bank USB admitted to breaking American laws and pay a several hundred million dollar fine. They were also required to provide the names of 4000+ ameriKans with accounts that were illegal tax evasion schemes. The repukes owned the government in 2008 and passes a 'tax amnesty' program for 2009 that allowed the cheats who were caught a 'get out of jail free' card by paying the taxes plus interest and penalties. Per Mitt's 2010 tax return, he had a USB account that he closed in 2010.
Did Mitt get caught with 'his hand in the cookie jar' and use his 'get out of jail free' card to avoid criminal prosecution? Is Mitt's 2009 usage of 'tax amnesty' the real reason why he cannot release that and previous years tax returns? Is Mitt Romney guilty of criminal tax evasion?
The tax returns haven't gone away and shouldn't until Romney answers this question.
"Gov. Romney, why did you provide 23 years to tax returns to the McCain campaign to be considered to the VP nomination, yet provided only 2 years to the American people to be considered for President?"
He has no good answer for this question.
Has he even been asked this question by our wonderful MSM?
Like one of the Republican tweeters said .
What were they thinking?
DOH! We'll be talking about Romney's taxes for another two weeks .
Follow-up: Governor, why did you require 10-12 years of tax returns from Paul Ryan when vetting him to be your running mate, when you won't give the American people the same opportunity in deciding whether or not to hire you? Do you think that a VP is to be held to a higher standard than the President?
Just to never see that truth-evading smirk again...
I still want to know if Romney was a participant in the Swiss bank account amnesty.I'll bet $10,000 that's what he's hiding.
We DO KNOW from his 2010 tax return that he had an account with the Swiss bank USB, which was the center of the TAX EVASION schemes, and closed it in 2010. We DO NOT KNOW if Mitt took 'tax amnesty' in 2010 which was offered to avoid criminal prosecution for those who were caught with their hands in the USB 'cookie jar'.
I know that I should mostly be concerned about the policies that Romney would enact if he were to become President-- and believe me, I am! --but I think that I am even more concerned about the possibility that Washington could become even more toxic than it is now if he were to be elected.
The whole "Obama was born in Kenya" thing was always absolutely ridiculous, but enough people believed it to make Obama's job of governing way more difficult than it needed to be. The question of whether Romney has been evading taxes is far less ridiculous given the fact that we know he lied on his tax forms back when he was running for governor of Massachusetts. (Wait, I'm sorry, he made a MISTAKE. Who could possibly expect a man who runs a multi-billion dollar corporation to read a legal document before signing it?!?)
Obama DID release his birth certificate even though no Presidential candidate had ever done so before; it just wasn't the one that birthers wanted. Romney has refused to release documents that are SOP for Presidential candidates... and people seem to think this will magically go away if he wins? I predict that the Taxer Conspiracy people will become louder and more disruptive if he wins, not less, and that he'll find it absolutely impossible to govern. Washington will be even MORE dysfunctional if he wins, and that scares the heck out of me.
I'm not a Birther by any means, but you do know it is a requirement to be a US citizen to be POTUS, showing your taxes is not. If we are going to ask for non-essential items, BO needs to show school records, medical records, his thesis for college etc. I'm expecting if Mitt gets elected to be a whole "taxers" movement, to go along with birthers, 9/11 truthers, another nut job group that is nothing more than a distraction.
No, Eric, you are trying to distract. The fact is that George Romney set the expectation of disclosing tax returns back in the 1960s, and every candidate has followed it with at least 5 years of taxes.
By contrast, not only has no candidate but Obama been pressed to provide a birth certificate, now Obama-haters want whatever other documents they can find to twist into their narrative that he does not "deserve" to be president. Obama's most important qualification for re-election is his performance in the last 4 years. Don't like what he's done? Don't vote for him, period.
"If we are going to ask for non-essential items, BO needs to show school records, medical records, his thesis for college etc."
Because every presidential candidate has "needed" to show school records, medical records, his thesis for college etc." right? Whereas, for every President in recent history, we actually have seen multiple years of tax returns (because they give a glimpse of a person's recent history, a person's recent priorities, a person's recent compliance with the law, etc., whereas school records are ridiculously irrelevant.) But sure. By the way, where is Rmoney's long form birth certificate? And did his parents enter the country legally? His father, George Romney, ran for President despite having been born in Mexico. Funny how things like that don't matter if you're a Republican.
Thanks for the polite response.
Of course the POTUS needs to be a US citizen, but why was Obama the only Presidential candidate in history asked to prove it? And when he proved it, that still wasn't enough until he produced a document from the state of Hawaii that he didn't actually have in his possession. (Who keeps their own long form birth certificate? I don't have mine, nor those for any of my three children)
I'm going with parity here. Obama has shown twelve years of tax returns; Romney should at least PRETEND that he's going to allow himself to be vetted to the same extent. In thirty years, no other Presidential candidate has ever released less than five years worth of returns. So no, it's not a Constitutional requirement, but precedent and tradition has been moving in the direction of increased transparency, and it's troubling that he has no respect for this. And if it was tradition for Presidential candidates to show school records and medical records, believe me, I'd be hammering at Obama for not doing so. But it isn't. Nobody else has ever asked for or provided those--including Romney--so why should Obama do so?
I agree with you about avoiding the crazy. My point is that this is less self-evidently crazy than the 9/11 truth movement, so it's going to be harder to ignore. Obama had to deal with the birthers while in the middle of planning the Osama bin Laden raid; talk about your distractions! I think that this tax issue will come up again at a similarly inconvenient moment for a theoretical Presidential Romney and this worries me.
I don't think that ANYONE should vote for or against Romney based upon his tax returns. That's stupid. But this issue won't go away with a Romney victory and I suspect that he'll wind up releasing his taxes eventually in any case simply so that he'll be able to govern effectively. I'm just saying that it would be a lot better for the country if he'd do it now, while campaigning, than later after the nuts have gotten a chance to stall any productive work from happening in Washington.
He's not releasing the returns, because he took an amnesty deal. It's the only logical explanation.
And why does Robme feel as though his treasonous behavior should be rewarded by being President?
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!
As you probably know, the trustee of Romney's blind trust did not take certain charitable giving deductions in order to increase Romney's 2011 effective tax rate from around 9% if those deductions had been taken to around 14%, and sent out a memo stating that. This action is the best argument yet for why we need multiple years of tax returns! Would Romney have taken the full deduction if he knew the public and the press were not watching? Did Romney game any other deductions through amendments to artificially increase his effective tax rate after he knew he would be running for president? The ONLY way you can know that is to see the other returns and any amendments from when he was not running for president. As Romney's father said and Romney just proved, anybody can game the system for a year or two when they know people are watching them (and when they know they can file an amendment within 3 years to claim the preserved deduction). That is just what the trustee did. We need more tax returns to get the real story.
But Romney will NEVER release them. I can't blame him. They will tell us too much. He has made the calculation that it is better for him to take the non-specific hit. He is probably right.
Mittens still has 3 years to file an 'amended return' to claim the deductions he did not yet take.
In 2010, Paul Ryan, during a speech to the US Chamber of Commerce, called the Cayman Islands "a place where you hide your money". I can't wait to hear how he and Romney will spin it now.
Neat, just grab a snippet and run with it, like MessNBC always does. You have been trained well.
Here's the link muggle.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/paul-ryan-cayman-islands-the-place-you-hide-your
Thanks Rollo! I tried to add the link, but couldn't get it to work.
Direct youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmV2gGq-2Tk&feature=player_embedded
Waiting now for Eric!'s retraction of that insult and to admit he was wrong ...
Conservatives don't admit that they are wrong or apologize for being wrong. They just repeat it until you either give up out of frustration or move to another subject to distract you away from their being wrong.
Interestingly enough being so afraid that someone will think you are weak or not perfect when you admit to being wrong is evidence of your own imperfection and weakness. But, then again, I've pointed out lord know's how many logical paradoxes these guys create in their own mind.
Honestly can't we just have a sane conversation for once? Where we argue about the differences of the tax rates without it devolving into wahhh I don't want my taxes to go to black people (or whatever other arbitrary complaint there is) or some other idiocy??? Why can't we just sit down and have a conversation of disagreement without it devolving immediately into absurdity?
In my opinion, a Romney presidency would be a very simple one. Lower taxes for the wealthy and sit back and wait for 'trickle down' to work (and, btw, watch his own fortune grow). That's it. He and his kind believe that is the answer to everything. He has shown he has no interest in domestic affairs, foreign affairs or anything else presidents are supposed to do.
I have no problem with the fact that Romney is very wealthy. It is what a person does with their wealth that shows his true character. As far as I'm concerned, evading taxes is as un-American and disdainful as spitting on veterans when they come home from war. It's all about character and he ain't got it.
Well it was a "blind" trust until you people poked your noses into it and opened people's eyes! Ding dang peons meddling in the affairs of your betters.
A 'blind trust' with his personal lawyer running it? Lawyer-client privilege to never have to deny that it was not a real blind trust.
I'd like some avocado with my pizzicato please!
I think the tax question is going to be the one that will resonate with more Republicans, that and the outsourcing of jobs.
The reason he is not releasing the returns is because he took the amnesty deal. It really is the only logical explanation for not releasing anything before 2010 as amnesty was granted in 2009, and that is the same time he closed his Swiss bank account. Tax rate, shmax rate. The fact that he's a tax evading criminal is the REAL issue. I just don't understand why the MSN is not even posing the question to him. It's plain and simple, "Mr. Romney, did you take an amnesty deal?" He has to answer yes or no and will HAVE to supply the tax returns to show whether he's telling the truth or not.
Not even! Lie & Deny is the Mitten's method.
First off, I wish MSNBC would stop with the standard default of posting to my Facebook account. If I want to do that, I'll select that option, thank you. Everyone who has money, and lot's of it, invest in the Cayman's nothing special there. Knock off the Facebook crap, or else..
Uncheck the 'Post to Facebook' box.
I'd love to see someone do a study of whatever tax returns we DO have for Mr. Romney over the past 3 years. What I'd like to know (and trust me I've tried to figure it out for myself to no avail) is - what was Mr. Romney's net worth in 2009, 2010, and 2011 (years we DO have some tax information from him).... The reason for the research - a VERY simple question : Mr. Romney, as a wealthy American you have most of your wealth tied up in Real Estate, bonds & equities, as well as a significant holding in the (privately held) Bain Capital. So - my question is - are you better off than you were personally 4 years ago? Considering that Real Estate has begun to grow, and the stock market has doubled since Obama took over.. I'm gonna guess that Willard's net worth has also seen STEEP increases over the past 3 years.
We do know that when Mittens released his 'preliminary' 2011 tax return he reported $20+ Million in income and when he released his 'final' 2011 tax return that income had shrunk to below $14 Million. No accounting gimmicks - right?
Wonder if IRS tax amnesty offered to customers of Swiss Bank (USB) had any role in Romney's TRs. If Romney had to pay because he didn't report income from a Swiss bank to avoid penalty from IRS, would that show on his TRs? What do you know about this.
The 'tax amnesty' filing year was 2009. That is why we need to see that year. We need to see more early years to get a better picture of his offshore accounts.
Rachel, please join in on this whole Amnesty tax discussion. The evidence is pretty strong that this is what Mitt is trying to avoid. You once said "What would you ask Mitt Romney if given the chance?".
My top question to Mitt, at this time, would be:
1. Did you take advantage of the 2009 American tax amnesty program for Swiss bank account holders?
Follow Up Link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/what-romneys-hiding-its-t_b_1908104.html
Well, as far as I can tell, he's done nothing illegal, his actions are just what one can expect of a person with a ton of money. In some ways, I can't blame him for taking advantage of the various methods that exist to shelter money from U.S. income and other taxes.
On the other hand, the fact that Romney can make use of such dodges as offshore accounts and suchlike to shelter his money tells me a lot about how well he understands the life of most Americans. If Romney were wealthy, but had a record of working in government or in his private life to make this country a better place for the large part of its people, I would perhaps find some reason to entrust him with the office of president. If he showed some understanding that decent, stable employment, good public education with equitable distribution, consumer protection, safe neighborhoods, a protected environment and meaningful representation in the highest levels of government are things that must be promoted and protected, then he might convince me that he can be trusted with the presidency.
But Romney has shown just the opposite. Whether he is personally rich or of average wealth is really not my business, as long as he obeys the law. What bothers me is that he, and his party, have shown themselves over a period of decades to be dedicated to arranging advantages to those who are rich and powerful, while obstructing access to all others. He and his party have truly shown themselves to be concerned only with the advancement of one sector of this country to the detriment of the rest.
Rich or poor (or even just well-off), it is this indifference to equality that turns me against Romney and the Republicans. While the Democratic party has not been exactly a stalwart crusader for justice, I know that they are mostly on my side. I know that I am not written off. For that small attention, I will stand by them and vote Democratic.
Well, as far as I can tell, he's done things that are illegal. We know that he closed his Swiss bank (USB) account in 2010. We know that in 2008 the USB bank paid a fine of several hundred million to the U.S. for illegal 'tax evasion' schemes and had to provide the U.S. government with the names of 4000+ persons who participated in the ILLEGAL TAX EVASION schemes. Unless and until Mitt releases his 2009 tax returns, we can only surmise that his was one of those names reported by USB to the U.S. government for participation in the ILLEGAL TAX EVASION.
Or, are we to apply the old time republican standard of 'anything goes' for a republican unless you get caught with a dead girl or live boy in your bed?
I want to see Romney's 2008 and 2009 returns. He can keep the others hidden. Those two years would tell us everything we need to know about his tax situation.
A tax expert could give answers of why people put money offshore. During the debates are the moderators going to treat Mitt with kid gloves on these issues ?? The public has the right to know if Rmoney disgrees with that (his Dad believed that ) then he should withdraw from the race. This is disgraceful.
Don't like the word? Wish to Confuse? Don't Apologize Redefine the darn word!
Simple the definition of income changes depending on where you get it from. The income that might have been taxed from financial returns, however if you earned the same money from fund you stashed in a corporation created in and country that does not tax corporate income. Then it is not income at all and you are free to calls it capital gains.
If people are corporations then corporations are countries. If you define it that way you can make it sound like anything you want, to deceive or convince, entertain, amuse or put small children to ben. This offers no way back, to the truth, and no foundation to reality, but plausible deniability to the confused world.
Suppose I wanted to say: If countries are corporations, then corporations are people. It suggests nonsense, but as a changeling, you are ensnared. If say an island, were to become country, but that was arranged by a corporation, and as corporation you are considered a person. The country need not be inhabited; the corporation need not have any employees, on paper it is a person, no matter. Thus funds from your country sent to the 'other' country could earn money that you would only pay on capital gains on it rather than income from your own country. If you had made a second company in that island country, you as the owner of both could transfer fund between the companies, and not even earn capital gains on which you could be taxed.
Seeing the obvious nonsense, you might start looking for excuses as how this familiar arrangement took hold, I suggest that it was tax avoidance, avoiding answerability between persons, between persons and corporations, between corporations and countries. From that to the United Nation to escape laws entirely.
Suppose that the uninhabited island country was slowly disappearing beneath the waves, the shore lines in all directions, moving sandy beaches closer and closer together to say the point where it was only under water half the day. The country does not need international rescue, but some of the corporations need a brick and mortar, say law office near the UN. Everything would remain as it was, no matter how the island country vanished, by wave action, or military action. The non-country would still have corporations owned by other corporations, and owned by foreign investors, and then by real persons carrying bales of tax returns, showing legal status.
Ataxmenot Island, is not a creation of fantasy, but one made by other nations, recognizing the lost island is a necessary evil in world to deal with evilness derived from an nations power to tax, or conflicting need to pay no taxes. After all people need to ruled, and would demand it.
Now to have to watch the well from which drank that water and so we need another example.
Mormons are instructed to follow the spiritual aspects, rather than the interpreted history or the narrative of its history or the many issues with the actual history. This is good thing because much like the simple changeling aspect of words describing tax island shelters, the emphasis is not on profits, not how the profits are had or how they are protected to who may claim owner ship. Focusing on the spiritual aspects of money and profit, will push out all previous morality, all words of inconstant meaning will drive out reality. The metaphorical island church of inconstant meaning, would be built on beach island sand, and lead to the frequently themed apocalypse that the provided the found of the Mormon Church.
Do we, who are losing our grasp in reality, have to rely on the religion of unfounded economic and spiritual belief?
Or must we start from the beginning using words can have any meaning you may want when you can just redefine them?
Welcome to those can still doubt everything you say.
------------
http://mormonthink.com/politics.htm
White Horse Prophecy
White Horse or Night Mare?