Mossack Fonseca / The Panama Papers

[wmw999 2,121]

Quote

Any CEO has the primary duty to shareholders

Personally, I think this is part of what's wrong with our financial system now. Because it means that too many companies are torturing their product mix, employee mix, and long-term planning to satisfy shareholders, who are mainly interested in maximum money NOW, instead of a company that makes a kick-ass product as well as possible, and is just fine, thank you, with the size it is right now.

Money is considered an all-purpose yardstick, but it can change what's being measured.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,254]

wmw999

Quote

Any CEO has the primary duty to shareholders

Personally, I think this is part of what's wrong with our financial system now.

I think that's what's wrong with our entire system, not just financial. The idea that putting money in is the only way to invest a company.

The guy that actually works there and directly contributes to the success of the company every single day? Fuck that guy, we need to figure out how little we can pay him while still keeping him productive. He doesn't deserve any more than that - the real money must go to the shareholders!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Stumpy 256]

jakee

***

Quote

Any CEO has the primary duty to shareholders

Personally, I think this is part of what's wrong with our financial system now.

I think that's what's wrong with our entire system, not just financial. The idea that putting money in is the only way to invest a company.

The guy that actually works there and directly contributes to the success of the company every single day? Fuck that guy, we need to figure out how little we can pay him while still keeping him productive. He doesn't deserve any more than that - the real money must go to the shareholders!

GOOD CEO's however don't think like that. Shareholder value is about more than just giving available money to the shareholders. They are generally playing a longer game than that.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

***

Quote

Any CEO has the primary duty to shareholders

Personally, I think this is part of what's wrong with our financial system now.

I think that's what's wrong with our entire system, not just financial. The idea that putting money in is the only way to invest a company.

The guy that actually works there and directly contributes to the success of the company every single day? Fuck that guy, we need to figure out how little we can pay him while still keeping him productive. He doesn't deserve any more than that - the real money must go to the shareholders!

Are you meaning the system in England? Or were you referring to the one in the US?

I ask - because you said "our".

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[gowlerk 1,910]

Quote

Are you meaning the system in England? Or were you referring to the one in the US?

I ask - because you said "our".

I can't speak for him. But I'd like to point out that in a global economy he could have been writing about both.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,396]

Quote

Personally, I think this is part of what's wrong with our financial system now. Because it means that too many companies are torturing their product mix, employee mix, and long-term planning to satisfy shareholders, who are mainly interested in maximum money NOW, instead of a company that makes a kick-ass product as well as possible, and is just fine, thank you, with the size it is right now.

I would note that this only applies to public companies. Unfortunately the only way to get big nowadays is to _become_ a public company.

[turtlespeed 212]

gowlerk

Quote

Are you meaning the system in England? Or were you referring to the one in the US?

I ask - because you said "our".

I can't speak for him. But I'd like to point out that in a global economy he could have been writing about both.

So which one was it? England, US, or Both?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,254]

Stumpy

******

Quote

Any CEO has the primary duty to shareholders

Personally, I think this is part of what's wrong with our financial system now.

I think that's what's wrong with our entire system, not just financial. The idea that putting money in is the only way to invest a company.

The guy that actually works there and directly contributes to the success of the company every single day? Fuck that guy, we need to figure out how little we can pay him while still keeping him productive. He doesn't deserve any more than that - the real money must go to the shareholders!

GOOD CEO's however don't think like that. Shareholder value is about more than just giving available money to the shareholders. They are generally playing a longer game than that.

Does McDonalds have a good CEO? Does Walmart?

If you really do have a cynical, purely share price driven view of business you cannot pretend that is always, or even often, going to align with the best interests of employees. If you're pinning your flag to that mast, you need to be open about the consequences.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ryoder 1,382]

In the topic of corporate multinationals avoiding taxes, The Economist has an interesting article: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21696542-open-warfare-breaks-out-between-white-house-and-americas-tax-shy-multinationals-pfiasco

It exposes a tax system that is 30 years out of date and obsolete in an age of globalisation.
...
The backdrop is that America’s headline corporate-tax rate is far too high. It stands at 39%. That is roughly the same as it was in the late 1980s, but since then other rich countries have slashed their tax rates, to an average of 25%.
...
The actual tax paid by all corporations was 33% of their domestic pre-tax profits in 2015 (see table). The 50 largest listed firms in America paid global cash tax equivalent to just 24% of their pre-tax profits in 2015.
...
How do big American firms manage it? After all, their taxman claims a right to grab a share of their global profits, unlike most European authorities, which aim to tax only the local profits of global firms.
...
But the big loss is the chance to rewrite the tax code. The last time it happened was in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan won cross-party support in Congress for comprehensive reform. The contours of a new settlement are obvious. Slash the headline rate to 25-30%, ditch all of the loopholes and charge American tax only on American profits. That would cut complexity, prod firms to bring profits home and keep tax revenues steady at about 2% of GDP.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Phil1111 910]

ryoder

In the topic of corporate multinationals avoiding taxes, The Economist has an interesting article: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21696542-open-warfare-breaks-out-between-white-house-and-americas-tax-shy-multinationals-pfiasco

It exposes a tax system that is 30 years out of date and obsolete in an age of globalisation.
...
The backdrop is that America’s headline corporate-tax rate is far too high. It stands at 39%. That is roughly the same as it was in the late 1980s, but since then other rich countries have slashed their tax rates, to an average of 25%.
...
The actual tax paid by all corporations was 33% of their domestic pre-tax profits in 2015 (see table). The 50 largest listed firms in America paid global cash tax equivalent to just 24% of their pre-tax profits in 2015.
...
How do big American firms manage it? After all, their taxman claims a right to grab a share of their global profits, unlike most European authorities, which aim to tax only the local profits of global firms.
...
But the big loss is the chance to rewrite the tax code. The last time it happened was in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan won cross-party support in Congress for comprehensive reform. The contours of a new settlement are obvious. Slash the headline rate to 25-30%, ditch all of the loopholes and charge American tax only on American profits. That would cut complexity, prod firms to bring profits home and keep tax revenues steady at about 2% of GDP.

Yes, US rates are too high:
https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/tax-rates-online/corporate-tax-rates-table.html

But the US is still a competitive jurisdiction:
http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/competitiveness-rankings/

[kallend 1,623]

ryoder

In the topic of corporate multinationals avoiding taxes, The Economist has an interesting article: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21696542-open-warfare-breaks-out-between-white-house-and-americas-tax-shy-multinationals-pfiasco

It exposes a tax system that is 30 years out of date and obsolete in an age of globalisation.
...
The backdrop is that America’s headline corporate-tax rate is far too high. It stands at 39%. That is roughly the same as it was in the late 1980s, but since then other rich countries have slashed their tax rates, to an average of 25%.
...
The actual tax paid by all corporations was 33% of their domestic pre-tax profits in 2015 (see table). The 50 largest listed firms in America paid global cash tax equivalent to just 24% of their pre-tax profits in 2015.
...
How do big American firms manage it? After all, their taxman claims a right to grab a share of their global profits, unlike most European authorities, which aim to tax only the local profits of global firms.
...
But the big loss is the chance to rewrite the tax code. The last time it happened was in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan won cross-party support in Congress for comprehensive reform. The contours of a new settlement are obvious. Slash the headline rate to 25-30%, ditch all of the loopholes and charge American tax only on American profits. That would cut complexity, prod firms to bring profits home and keep tax revenues steady at about 2% of GDP.

Same should apply to individual taxes too. The US taxes ex-pat citizens on income received anywhere - even if they haven't lived in the US for decades. All it does is encourage ex-pats to relinquish their citizenship.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

This all died out very quickly.

I suspect some very powerful people wanted it that way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

DougH

Your soap box is rather wobbly when you stop and considering what the price higher education is doing to average middle class American families.

To paraphrase Derek Bok, if you think investing in education is expensive, consider the cost of ignorance.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

This all died out very quickly.

I suspect some very powerful people wanted it that way.

I'm sure the Clintons are doing their best to cooperate with the proper authorities in that matter.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

***This all died out very quickly.

I suspect some very powerful people wanted it that way.

I'm sure the Clintons are doing their best to cooperate with the proper authorities in that matter.

Oh puleeze. The Clintons are pikers compared with the folks on the list.

You really can't help it, can you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,382]

ICIJ announces release of data for May 9: https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160426-database-coming-soon.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[turtlespeed 212]

ryoder

ICIJ announces release of data for May 9: https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160426-database-coming-soon.html

200K companies?

Wasn't there like 400K originally? Where did the rest disappear to?
Or were they worried about being disappeared them selves?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,623]

kallend

This all died out very quickly.

I suspect some very powerful people wanted it that way.

www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/us/panama-papers.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Meanwhile the rich and powerful engineer bathroom and gorilla news to keep the average taxpayers distracted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Mike111 0]

Also amusing how our PM was dragged into it due to the previous dealings of his father with the company.

I agree everyone should play by the rules and pay their fair share of tax yet if i had billions, I would probably do everything i could to retain as much of it as possible via such offshore funds etc.So I would be a hypocrite to criticise from a theoretical POV.

With the previous recession and drop in living standards, there is definitely a case for leaders to "lead by example", especially when their election manifestos preachers this (e.g "we are all in this together - Conservative Party tagline).