User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive

Money Grabber



Yet another so-called expert states that if the OECD plan is to be executed, "Multinationals would likely think twice before engaging in aggressive tax structures."… which are legal! We would recommend this tax so-called expert to get a remedial class in law. But then again, all this has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with greedy politicians trying to keep their jobs.




Yet another "advocate" for this bureaucratic nonsense states that “The new OECD recommendations offer a veil of confidentiality that could perpetuate the very secrecy it’s intended to address." simply because this information won't be made public. So, it is not enough that now corporations cannot arrange their business according to their preferences within the law, but now these preferences must be made public. Fair enough, then in the spirit of reciprocity and equality, we demand that the person or organization making this statement make all their private financial documents public. Right now! No delays, no excuses, no nothing. If transparency is such a good thing for corporations, it is also a good thing for people. You go first!




The article continues by stating that "general implementation of the overall themes of the BEPS action plan would likely create enough collective global pressure on multinational corporations to force a change in tax avoiding behaviors." And again, the people from the ICIJ should take a quick remedial course in law. Avoidance is not evasion!!!! So much for "The World's Best Cross-Border Investigative Team"…


The diatribe continues stating that Australia, France and Britain are the likely early-adopters. Gee… few of the most socialistic countries in the world want to steal more money from the people and they can't wait to do it. What a surprise!




The ICIJ article ends with a comment from an OECD's official (please note, he is not a government official) stating that these "initiatives were aimed at restoring nations' right to tax". Because, of course, corporations are not being taxed at all right? Because corporations have managed somehow to bent tax laws right? Because corporations have decided that they must pay taxes whether or not they are due right? This sentence is so incredibly nonsensical that only a brainwashed socialistic apparatchik can utter it (see for example The Most Important Lesson ). Let's be clear: corporation's money is, by definition… well… corporation's money! No government of any country has any right to it because it is not their money. Let's state this again: it is not government money. And for those of you out there still believing that there is some sort of valid Social Contract that allows governments to do so, we direct you to our article Social Contracts Are A Scam.




Politician's motto used to be:


Do as we say not as we do


However, the way the OECD is acting it would seem that this has now changed to:


Don't do as we do, don't do as we say, do as we think you should do.


This is patently ridiculous!


There is a reason why laws are written; this is precisely to avoid arbitrary judgements from apparatchiks such as the ones in the OECD. Let's be clear. We are not fond of any laws simply because laws are not voluntary contracts and they are created and changed without our express agreement. But however invalid laws may be, they offer at least a modicum of objectivity, a patina of decency, a resemblance of fairness. What the OECD is doing is clearly going beyond this by re-interpreting the laws and de-facto turning legal activities into illegal.


If this would not be the case, then why is that all these evil, evil corporations are not prosecuted? Don't tell us that governments have insufficient law enforcers or that there are insufficient extradition treaties or insufficient law enforcement cooperation among countries. Let's be clear. If corporations are indeed breaking the law (as the OECD seems to hint), then where is the proof? Why is that action was not taken?


And for those shameless politicians that are pushing the OECD to do this we have a question: what happened to the key legal concept that an accused is not required to testify against him or herself? Because this is exactly what this new OECD initiative is forcing corporations to do… corporations that we remind our readers are considered entities under the law (i.e. the term incorporate means to "become a body" in Latin). But then again, in almost every country in the planet, "normal" judicial principles do not apply when it comes to taxation. Typically in taxation matters, you are guilty until proven innocent. So much for justice!




The concept that somehow taxation is "fair" is plain ridiculous. We won't go into long explanations, we will simply provide a few (very basic) points:


  • Politicians are not your representatives because they can't simultaneously represent the opposing points of view of their electorate
  • Politicians therefore are independent entities bound to nobody
  • Politicians therefore act subjectively
  • Politicians therefore determine taxation subjectively
  • Ergo, taxation can never be "fair" because it is never "objective". What is "fair" for one person is "unfair" for the next one.

Even if we decide that "unfair" taxation is fair enough, there is no objective or even mildly rational way to determine what taxation level is necessary to achieve a given goal.


Taxation is not fair and it never was. It is a racket, a "protection business". Taxation is funny this way. If organized crime does it, it is crime. If the government does it, it is "fair" and "legal". What a pile of nonsense!




This barrage of biased communication coming from the ICIJ deserves at least a superficial rebuttal. In order to do so, let's assume that social contracts are valid (which are not) and that governments will tax for the benefit of the people (like communists used to say). Fair enough. If this is the case, then we should be able to see tangible benefits of all this taxation. Modern governments have had since WWII (70+ years) to show us what they are capable of. So, ICIJ's implied thesis in supporting the OECD is that corporations should fork money to politicians who:


And so on. The list is endless but we don't want you to bore you to death.


According to the implied ICIJ thesis is these people, the politicians, that we must trust our money with and not the rightful owners (corporations) which actually create goods and services which improve our standards of living. This is so because we all know that rich people just hoard their riches in their secret basement vaults and bathe in them like Scrooge McDuck. Give us a break! Corporations invest money which is used as capital to improve our lives or where do you think that investment money comes from? The government? Don't be ridiculous! The notion of greedy corporate owners who do not invest their money is a myth (see for example Those Bastards - The Rich People ).




It truly is a shame that ICIJ journalists are so misinformed, or malinformed or simply not that good at their chosen profession or any combination of those items. They could really make a difference. Instead, they choose to prolong the pain and suffering of the population by supporting a political and economic theory (communism / socialism) that has been proven erroneous time and time again. But then they are the 60's and 70's generation. They have lived through the illusory golden years of socialism and have been thoroughly brainwashed by socialist educational systems imposed by governments (aka "public education"). Who can blame them? Well… we can! They are supposed to be an "Investigative Team" yet, they can't investigate what has been etched in their brains through 10 or more formative years of socialism. Blind spot anyone? Guys and gals from the ICIJ, communism is dead and socialism (its little brother) is no better. They are dead because they don't work. Please, read the history books and get with the program. What are you going to do as history marches on and countries and politicians continue to dissolve? Who are you people going to blame? Who will be left? The Dalai Lama? Get a grip, reality is passing you by and this is not good neither for journalists nor for your readers.


Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.


English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It