August 27, 2014

Ferguson’s looter mentality in Washington DC [Darleen Click]

What is the difference between these Ferguson “protesters”

CBS interviewed three young men in Ferguson, Missouri this week.
One protester Gunny warned officials:

“To be honest, if they don’t come and restore these neighborhoods for these people, like when you gotta go travel miles to Walmart and to get gas and stuff like that, it should be right here. If they don’t restore this community for people who stay here it’s gonna be hell to pay

A second protester chimed in:

Yeah, that’s why people looting, because they can’t get no jobs.

… and Obama’s bloviating about “unpatriotic”companies fleeing the US’s looter corporate taxrates through inversion …

In remarks and statements made on July 24, President Barack Obama appealed for “economic patriotism” from those American corporations that are contemplating a “corporate inversion” as a means of avoiding the high United States corporate tax rate, whilst also dragging Ireland’s lower tax rate into the controversy. [...]

In an address to a college in Los Angeles, the President pointed to corporate inversions as a “threat” because, while the companies’ businesses still remain in the US and have “all the advantages of operating in the US, they just don’t want to pay for it.” He added that, by technically renouncing their US citizenship, the companies are “cherry-picking the rules,” and that: “I don’t care if it’s legal – it’s wrong.”

and promising “hell to pay”?

The Obama administration is continuing to make its case for legislation that would retroactively strip the tax advantages away from many of the year’s biggest mergers and acquisitions.

On Thursday, Mark J. Mazur, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for tax policy, made the case that any new laws targeting inversions – transactions that allow American companies to reincorporate abroad – should be backdated to May 2014, potentially affecting a number of multibillion-dollar deals.

Not much.

Posted by Darleen @ 8:12am
30 comments | Trackback

Tags: , , ,

Comments (30)

  1. “I don’t care if it’s legal.”

    Top of the list of things you DON’T want to hear a Chief Executive say.

    Has anyone seen our rule of law, lately?

    I get the feeling it’s now camped out under a bridge abutment somewhere in Iowa – and not looking good, at all…

  2. He doesn’t care what’s illlegal either, so…

  3. Burger King and the Whopper About Taxes

    Just in case you’ve only heard the MSM version on how corporate (and personal) taxes work here.

  4. “If you don’t give us stuff, we’ll burn down all of the other businesses that have been providing our basic needs, too!”

    And this is supposed to make entrepreneurs eager to show up with their capital that will be at risk of the next extortioners to come along?

    Meanwhile…

    The Obama administration is continuing to make its case for legislation that would retroactively strip…

    See also the US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

  5. Ex post facto, unconstitutional? Ha!

    In the early 1980s, Congress created a tax deduction to encourage people to sell stock in a company to that company’s employee stock option plan (ESOP). To get the benefit of that deduction, Jerry W. Carlton, the executor of the estate of Willametta K. Day, sold stock to an ESOP at a loss. Engaging in what Justice Antonin Scalia later called “bait and switch” taxation, Congress in 1986 repealed the tax deduction and applied the repeal retroactively, costing the estate more than $600,000. Justice Scalia’s comment notwithstanding, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the government’s assessment of the tax.

    In April 1976, E. M. Darusmont was notified by his Houston employer that he was to be transferred. He and his wife, of course, had to sell their home, which was a three-family house; they had rented the other two parts of the house to help pay the mortgage. The Darusmonts engaged a firm to advise them how best to sell the house to minimize the tax consequences. After weighing those different tax consequences, they sold the home outright, recognizing a gain of $51,000 or so. Under the rules then in effect, they had to pay tax on only half that amount. Then, in October, President Gerald Ford signed the Tax Reform Act of 1976, which retroactively increased the minimum tax. The Darusmonts had to pay an additional $2,280, which, for a family like the Darusmonts, in 1976 dollars, was not an insubstantial sum. This outcome wholly undercut their planning, yet the Supreme Court upheld the government’s assessment of the tax.3

    More outrageous still is a case in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released final rules in 1993, which it applied retroactively to tax years effective for 1984. In this case, the IRS changed the rules for when a company can deduct interest owed to a foreigner, from when it is accrued to when it is paid. Companies needed to re-file returns going back as long as 10 years. The Third Circuit upheld the rule as within the IRS’s authority because section 7805(b) of the Internal Revenue Code states that “The Secretary may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any ruling or regulation relating to the internal revenue laws, shall be applied without retroactive effect.” The court held that “Clearly Congress has determined that treasury regulations are presumed to apply retroactively.”

  6. And then there’s the Clinton one which broke new ground in trashing the constitution.

  7. Also:

    *** Do you remember this bit from the Constitution of the United States?

    [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; . . .

    That’s so-called “Treaty Clause” from Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. It is one of several checks on executive power thoughtfully provided by the Founders but flouted by the Golfer-in-Chief currently occupying the White House.

    Can’t get two-third of the Senate to approve a bit of Green Legislation you favor? No problem? Just pretend that the United States of America is subject not to its Constitution but the transnational organization of gangsters, kleptocracies, and Third-World dictatorships known as the Untied Nations. ***

  8. How long until the Takings Clause becomes the “Come and Take It” Clause? Not that I would ever encourage disobedience, of course (hello, NSA!) — merely observing the incentive structures that are being put in place.

  9. I have the solution to this “food desert” cum “shopping desert” cum “employment opportunity desert” nonsense that those poor, desperately angry, starving unemployed shoppers are looking for. Ready? Here it is:

    Don’t shit were you eat.

    Think maybe I can get a government grant to teach looters that?

  10. I don’t care if it’s right – it’s illegal

  11. Not that I would ever encourage disobedience

    I don’t care if it’s illegal… it’s right.

  12. I don’t care if it’s legal — it’s wrong . . . . . I don’t care if it’s right – it’s illegal

    That’s a sweet juxtaposition bgbear. Exquisite, in fact.

    We can instantly recognize the hidden card trick ClownDisaster plays (and gets away with, of course, because no one challenges during a ‘speech’).

    “From whence,” the challenge might go, “comes this ‘wrong’ of which you speak, ClownDisaster?” Bible? Harvard? Nature? Where are you getting that thing you seem to think you have, and presume without warrant on our behalf that we have it too — you disgusting piece of tyrannical shit, you?

  13. Or how about the question this Andrew Malcom article raises [How Obama plays PR with national security], in light of the claim “I don’t care if it’s legal — it’s wrong!”

    Just when are these “right-wrong” rules to apply? Whenever this tyrannical piece of shit decides he wants them to? So then there are no fucking rules.

  14. ****legislation that would retroactively strip the tax advantages away from many of the year’s biggest mergers and acquisitions****

    Dramatized.

  15. “Sorry, Mr. IRS Man, I already spent the tax savings — to help get your next boss elected.”

  16. “Hold STILL while we bleed you dry, you ungrateful ox!”

  17. “you ungrateful ox!”

    RAAAAACISS!

  18. On Thursday, Mark J. Mazur, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for tax policy, made the case that any new laws targeting inversions – transactions that allow American companies to reincorporate abroad – should be backdated to May 2014, potentially affecting a number of multibillion-dollar deals. – See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/#sthash.bzIV4QV9.dpuf

    The unintended consequences of this are going to be amusing.
    Reincorporate overseas.
    Sell the company assets to a shell corporation also headquartered overseas.
    Seek every tax advantage a foreign company can get here in the good old USA.
    It’s even funnier if the company has no physical assets.
    IRS-“You owe us 50,000,000 samolians”
    Former US company now doing business out of Macao-“oh yeah? Good luck collecting that.”
    IRS-“We’ll just take it from the companies here that owe you money.”
    Former US company-“I better make room over here.”

  19. Which legislation established this greedy, job-killing policy? Who sponsored it, and who voted it through?

    They’re probably due for tarring and feathering a dozen times over already, but what the hell — 13 has long been America’s lucky number.

  20. proggslam news

    Rotherham, England

  21. The MSM loves a good Romney 2016 story:

    Romney was a lousy candidate. He had one good debate, and that was due more to Obama’s arrogance and lack of preparation. The press was caught rather flat-footed for that one too. Both the president and his MSM minions made sure that didn’t happen again and Mitt was pretty much defeated by Candy Crowley.

    The press would love to see Mitt run again because they know he’ll seem invincible all through the primaries and then nice guy his way to a drubbing in the general by Fauxcahontas.

  22. Democrats Seek ‘Government Shutdown’ Lifesaver

    Well. it’s not like they can rely on white cops to keep shooting unarmed black boys from now until November, is it? You gotta have a backup plan, right?

  23. yo bh & sdferr : you be ok

  24. I thought Reagan was for even numbered days and Havel was for the odd.

Leave a Reply