An article from MSN money that I will quote, pretty much calls BS on the whole video. Money moved or earned offshore, still counts toward your total tax liability. Hiding money offshore and not reporting it for tax purposes is not legal.
The Buffet thing is worn out, and again not accurate.
My income tax rate, filing jointly, was 15%. The effective rate after the child tax credit, mortgage interest, student interest, etc., was much lower.
Buffet's secretary, if she filed single status, had a base rate of 28%. Buffet, if he owed income tax, would have a base rate of 35%, which is definitely higher than his secretary. Most likely, Buffet is no longer collecting a paycheck, and therefore pays no income tax (0%). The 17% rate for Buffet is his capital gains tax rate which is different from income tax, and therefore not comparable. That is the tax rate he pays on the returns he gets from his investments. I'm not sure if there are different capital gains rates, but if the secretary had no investments, like myself and many other Americans, her capital gains tax rate would be the same as mine. Zero percent, which is lower than Buffet's rate of 17%.
How many people don't understand all that and just accept the misleading talking points?
The way to get more tax revenue is to raise rates, or get rid of credits and deductions in the tax code. The question is, should the Gov't get more revenue, or can it do with less? Is the economy better if we let people keep more of their money to put into it, or is the ecomony better if the Gov't takes more money out of it to pay its bills rather than scaling back?
A flat percentage tax, like many states use, would be far better than what we have now, and would be more fair. Why should anyone be punished with a higher tax rate just because they earn more money? Is it right for those on the lower end, who already have a lower base rate, to effectively have little or no skin in the game because the gimmicks in the tax code allow them to get most or all of their tax dollars refunded to them?
2/14/2012 3:46 PM ET
|By Brett Arends, SmartMoney
Why the rich stash cash offshore
Mitt Romney has been criticized for parking some of his fortune in Cayman Islands accounts, but he and other wealthy people aren’t really trying to duck taxes there.
One thing's for sure. Mitt Romney didn't send his money down to the Cayman Islands to work on its tan.
The former Massachusetts governor has been criticized by some for having some of his vast fortune in the Caribbean offshore banking center. Yes, it was politically clumsy. But it was not uncommon, and -- assuming he has filed all the right disclosures -- it was perfectly legal.
But if you're not running for president, and don't have to worry about public relations, what are the legitimate reasons for moving money offshore?
I spoke to Jim Duggan, a partner at Chicago law firm Duggan Bertsch, to get the skinny. He's a tax and estate planning attorney who specializes in wealth management issues for the very rich, and he's been practicing in this area for nearly 20 years
Taxing the rich
He says a growing number of wealthy people are looking into moving some of their money offshore. "The interest in offshore planning has increased basically by a factor of five in the last ten years," he says. Clients want to talk to him about it all the time.
Why?
Contrary to popular opinion, it's not really to save on taxes.
That's because American taxpayers are taxed on their worldwide income -- so if you're making $10,000 (or $10 million) in interest on a bank account in, say, the Caymans or Switzerland, you're getting taxed by Uncle Sam as if you're making it in a bank account here.
It's easy to scoff and assume the rich are hiding their money and cheating. Doubtless some are. But enforcement is tight, and the penalties aren't so much draconian as medieval. They are far more severe than for tax evasion onshore.
And there are plenty of tax shelters available here in the U.S. anyway -- such as trusts in low-tax states, life insurance and variable annuities.
So what are the real reasons the rich are casing the Caymans with their cash?
There are two, says Duggan: Litigation risk and political risk.
Yes: Political risk. Or, as he puts in a nice legal euphemism, "jurisdictional diversification."
Litigation risk is the old reason. You could get hit by a crazy lawsuit here in the U.S. The wealthy are an easy mark, and anything onshore is vulnerable. But the U.S. courts don't have jurisdiction overseas and if you plan things right you have at least some chance of protecting money held offshore, Duggan says. "It keeps you away from our court system and the caprices of our courts," he says.
The new reason, though, is political risk: "Diversification from our government, policies and banking systems," says Duggan. The last few years have shaken faith in our system. Duggan says growing numbers of his clients are worried about the financial system, confiscation -- the whole shebang. "They're concerned about our government and where our society is headed. There's a lot of socialistic tendencies, capital controls, the redistribution of wealth."
Once again it's easy to scoff. Financially, the very wealthy have probably never had it so good in this country. Corporate profits and financial assets are booming. Tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains are very, very low. But Duggan says the wealthy feel under attack, and government rhetoric is making them nervous.
But there's a problem here. Imagine a future government did decide to confiscate assets. They'd go after the money you held in Switzerland just as much as the money you held in New York, and the penalties for tax evasion would be as medieval as they are now.
The only way to save your money would presumably be to renounce your citizenship and move into exile. Even then the IRS might come after you. Do you want to spend the rest of your life living next to Roman Polanski in France?
Once again, all this makes you see the appeal of holding some gold within a portfolio.
Personally, I don't see any reason to think this administration is going to go after the so-called 1%. Too many policymakers are members of that elite group already -- or they have high hopes of joining after they retire.
