Pirate Banks? Or Pirate governments?

It's an interesting question.
And one that answers itself --depending on where you stand.


Oh -- before I get too far -- this is in reference to an article recently published by CNBC.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthy-stash-21-trillion-pirate-160830668.html

As I was saying...
The thrust of the article is to report some "research" by a left leaning think tank in the US (the so called "Tax Justice Network USA"), accusing many private banks around the world of colluding with the rich to hide their wealth from the US government.

The article calls the banks helping these people - PIRATES.

Which is VERY interesting.
Yes. You could just dismiss this as cheap name calling, (which it is).
Or you might assume the author thought 'pirate' sounded similar to 'private' and it was a nice pun. Again, a pretty cheap one. One that doesn't show much intellectual horsepower.

But when you really think about it...
If you analyze what he's really saying it's nothing short of shocking...and stupid.


But I'm also curious: Does this writer even realise what he's said?

But don't just take it from me. You decide....

Here's what I mean:
A pirate is basically a mugger on the seas. Someone who comes up to your boat or ship. He puts a gun to your head and says give me the valuable goods on this ship -- OR ELSE.

--Right?

He didn't work for the goods. He didn't take the risks involved in producing, selling, transporting or delivering the goods. But he wants them just the same. To spend on booze, whores and fine living. 


What about Taxes?
Even the most left leaning person will admit:
If you don't satisfy the tax collecting authority in your country --- if you don't pay the amounts THEY determine you should...
People carrying guns WILL come to your home or business.

Governments collect taxes at the end of a barrel of a gun. 


Back to the rich and their money.
It's happening around the world. Tax rates are rising -- especially for the rich. They make great political scapegoats.

But answer this. If your government suddenly decided that you should give them 75% of your wealth ---as they recently have in France --- would you just stand by?

Or would you be looking for ways to keep that money?
Money you worked hard for. For years. Risking everything. Working nights, weekends and holidays.
When the people collecting welfare were enjoying their free time and government benefits, you had your nose to the grindstone.

And if you could find a way to hide the money -- to keep what you had so rightfully earned with your blood, sweat, tears and premature gray hairs? Would you?

Now imagine you got help from a bank in PROTECTING your wealth. Help keeping your money out of the grasping, rapacious hands of wasteful government....

************************
SIDEBAR:
Government: A black hole.
Even if government COULD get their hands on all that wealth. Do we image for one moment that would solve the problem? How long would it be before government would be back AGAIN looking for even more money.


An intelligent investor knows how to make money grow. How to multiply money.
Government is expert at the opposite. Making money diminish. Turning dollar into pennies.

Making policies that make doing business harder, costlier and riskier. Enforcement of laws (which costs money) that actually make businesses less efficient. Less profitable. Able to pay less tax!
END of SIDEBAR
***************************

Would you consider yourself or the bank helping you A PIRATE?

See how dishonest this is? How twisted? How unbelievably stupid?

To put this into perspective, this is like a mugger running a protection racket coming to your business or home. He demands the majority of all your money.
But he soon realises you don't have ANY cash on hand. Nothing.
Not only that, you've just moved out. So you have nothing he can take or destroy.
Your business or home is empty except for a simple wooden stool you sit on.

Would you give him your new address?

The mugger then goes outside and starts screaming that YOU ROBBED HIM of the money he deserved.
That YOU ARE A PIRATE!
That's rich.

So rich, I doubt the person who wrote that gave it a second thought because he isn't showing any more intelligence or honesty than most governments.




Piracy and Taxes

Isn't government the one that puts a gun to your head and demands a certain percentage of your wealth in order to keep your life and freedom?

And governments believe they have a RIGHT to as much of your wealth as they arbitrarily decide.

Of course, governments can believe anything they want. And they DO make the rules. They can say: "Because you live and work inside the borders of the land I control, I'm going to take 75% of your money for myself."

Sure. They can do whatever they want. They have the guns.

But 
Seriously. Let's at least be honest

Who is the PIRATE?
Who is raping and pillaging at will?
Who takes what they want because they have a bigger gun?

Not because they earned it. Not because they worked for it. But because they say it is theirs. And because they have the guns to force you and me into submission.


You see -- the whole argument this guy is putting forth rests on the idea that YOUR money is not your own. That --- if the government so decides --- they can take everything you have. And if you use the laws they wrote to try to protect yourself, if you dare to outsmart them (as these rich people apparently have...
YOU ARE A PIRATE.

In short this author --- and many people out there --- believe that what is yours REALLY BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

That you are a stupid, senseless cow to be milked and slaughtered at will. An asset of the state. A serf.

That your sole purpose in existing is to produce EVER MORE taxes for a government.... so it can continue to make laws that give it ever more power over every aspect of your life, impede commerce and eventually make everyone poor. 



Do you believe that?

A Tragically Foolish Old Woman

There was a little girl who had few friends as a child and even fewer as she grew up.

She didn't know why.
All the children avoided her.

But every child knew exactly why they avoided her.

She didn't share her toys. And she hit the other children.

But there was more.

She would bring big brother with her when she went to the other kids house. He would hide then come in when the other kid wasn't looking.

He would hit and kick the child while she would stand and watch.

It didn't matter how they screamed or cried. She just watched. Sometimes she even left and went home while her brother continued kicking and punching.

Now she was grown.
She still went to their house. She still wanted to play the childish games of youth.

And she still brought her brother with her.

Most - realising this - continued to avoid her.
But she was so persistant.
Day in and out.
Beating at the gate. Sometimes climbing the fence.
Or just peering through.

Sometimes they let her in because she looked so sad and pittiful. Other times because they hoped she'd changed.

But they soon found out. Her brother still hid then came in later. She still hit and kicked. And then her brother would start.


As a result, most still avoided her. But some now began to fight back. To call her the bully and cruel beastly coward she was.

To tell her that no friend treated their friends that way.

They told her, they'd grown up. And that if she ever wanted to come over again she had to CHANGE. 

That's when she screamed that they had to forgive her.
And their eyes went white when she said that she'd already forgiven them.

She said they couldn't hold her brother responsible. He had problems. They needed to understand. And forgive.

Most refused and turned cold.
Her circle of friends continued to dwindle.

Yet she continued to come back. Beating at the gate. Loudly.

Sometimes she pretended nothing had ever happened. Another day, she tried pity, guilt, tears.

And as before. When they wouldn't let her in, she occasionally jumped the fence and had to be thrown out.

That's when she made a scene. Calling the others cruel. Sometimes her brother was there as well to hurl insults and accusations.

In the end - she only had two friends left. One no longer human. Clearly a broken horse that no longer resisted the abuse and beatings. He stood lifeless and senseless.

Then there was her brother.
Oh. Yes. You probably guessed. He WAS mentally sick. And Yes. He also beat her.

And that is how this old woman died. Alone with no friends. Even her family had long since tired of her abuse.

She had no one except for the man who beat her and the broken one she beat.

And with her dying breath she bleated: But, they have to forgive me. She repeated this again and again.

As if the repetition would make it come true. But what she never in her life faced was that forgiveness is not just a one way street.

To be truly be forgiven --in heaven and on earth-- as they teach in the 12 step programs, one must admit errors, stop doing that which is wrong and make amends where possible. 

But the true and sad tragedy is that this foolish old woman dies never taking responsibility, never doing what is right, never facing the truth of life and most of all - never living.

As she breathes her last, her dying thoughts torment her with guilt and self-pity.

Is Tax One Of Your Sacred Cows?

Tax is a bit of a sacred cow in most countries today. Not sure?
That's OK.

Here. Let me show you. I'm going to propose something that will probably shock you. It may even anger you. In fact -- you may want to start calling me names or worse once you read it.

If you have even a hint of such a reaction - then this IS a sacred cow for you.

Ready?

We should drop the current so-called "progressive" system of taxation in favor of a "regressive". Actually those names are as inaccurate as when they first started calling that beautiful oasis in the North Atlantic, Iceland to ward off other hungry explorers, greedy for conquest and gain. Then they called that nearly useless block of ice, Greenland.

See?

Same deal with "progressive" and "regressive".
The former sounds so, well, progressive. Modern and enlightened. And that is how it is passed off. Of course it refers to a system that progressively INcreases the tax rate or percentage the MORE one earns.
Punishing productivity.

Then we have regressive. Which - again - sounds backward, medieval & dark. In such a system, one's tax rate DEcreases the more she earns.

Ahhh.... And therein lies the rub.
The current system of so-called progressive taxation --- as we all know --- is designed to PUNISH those with higher and higher earnings.

At the risk of sounding patronizing, let me repeat for clarity. That means one is REWARDED for earning LESS.  Rewarded for being LESS productive. And PUNISHED for producing more. For being more economically competent and diligent.

Hmmmm....
See the problem here?
Consider that in any system -- you get more of the behavior you reward.
In the home, schools, businesses, hospitals, government offices, prisons.... any place people gather and work together.   
If you reward the behavior you DON'T want, you will get more of it.

Conversely, it is common knowledge that when the desired behaviors are acknowledged and rewarded institutions get what they want.

To illustrate this, let's as what would happen if we used the same logic for the law.

Generally speaking an offender will receive a LONGER sentence for Murder 1, than for Murder 2. And likewise, Murder 2 is more harshly treated than Murder 3.
Just a little refresher.

Murder One is planned and premeditated. Murder in cold blood so to speak. Murder Two could more accurately be called a crime of passion. And of course, Murder Three is basically killing by negligence.

What would our system of law and justice look like IF --- as with "progressive" taxes --- the law deal lightly with the most heinous behavior and harshly with trivial offenses?

To illustrate my point, indulge me.
What if we had a system that meted out the harshest punishment for Murder 3 and the lightest for Murder 1?

Insane - Right?
Unbelievable. Twisted.

Back to our question of taxation.
How is Punishing people for earning MORE money any different?

Are you angry yet?
Are you defending the current system?

Why?
Because you've never known anything else? Or because it really is the best?

All right. Let's just say for a moment it IS somehow the "right" thing to do.
That somehow punishing the most productive members of society is good.

But --- even if that be so --- by the simple law of human nature and psychology
won't we tend to get more of what we reward?

Won't the countries with the most "progressive" systems tend to get poorer and poorer?
And those jurisdictions with less "progressive" tax policies richer and richer?

If you're like me, you see that -- even though it might still feel a bit strange because
of the propaganda we've been force-fed our whole life -- a REGRESSIVE
tax makes a lot of sense.

Let's go one step further and imagine a regressive system for a moment:

In a regressive system of taxation, the bottom earners would pay the highest rate.
Let's say we split the population into 4 tiers.
The bottom 20 percentile
The middle 20 - 80 percentile and
The top, from 80 - 99
And then the top 1 percent.

Let's say the people earning the least pay 25% tax.
The middle pay 15%
Those from 80-99 percentile 5%.
And the top 1% pay NO tax at all.

Would YOU be motivated to earn more money?



So --- How did you do? Is Tax a Sacred Cow for YOU?

If you did, it's OK.
The important thing is to begin thinking...and questioning.
Being willing to examine things we've taken for granted up till now.
To slay sacred cows where ever we find
them.
Because we ALL have them. It's just human nature. We all have blind spots.
The mark of humanity, though, is to have fewer and fewer as one grows in years
and hopefully wisdom.

But just be forewarned. when you begin slaying your sacred cows,
I hope you'll be careful who you share your views with.

Because there are vast numbers of people ready to kill for their beliefs.
Beliefs which most have never examined or questioned.


We see many of those people on the TV and in the newspapers shouting that they are
part of the 99% and proud of it.

Well --- this may be the subject for another post, but I wouldn't never proudly
shout that I was part of the 99%.

I have too much respect for and understanding of the contribution the top 1% make to bad
mouth them.

Anyway - I vote for a regressive tax system that rewards the most productive, intelligent
diligent humans. Not one that progressively kills the golden goose...

How About You?

Creative Writing Major Unemployable? Surprised? REALLY?

Can you believe it? In this day and age?

OK - I'm getting ahead of myself.
I read an article today about poor, poor graduates -- over 50% apparently-- who can't find jobs.
Here's the link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-2-graduates-jobless-underemployed-140300522.html

At first brush, it sounds horrible. Tsk, tsk...

Until...

You read far enough to lose all empathy with them. In fact - I can only call them suckers. Dupes. Marks who's been scammed by the so-called education system, their own ignorance, greed and stupidity.

Harsh?


Because, the people who are working "below" their education, the so called 'under-employed' or those who end up working in a totally different field than their major, the so-called 'mal-employed' have chosen majors for which there is no economic use.


Can you believe? --- drum roll please --- they chose such majors as Creative Writing!

I'm baffled. WHY would anyone do that I ask myself. 
OK. Fine. Whatever. It's his or her life. To each her own.

Choosing a major is not easy.

I've seen the extremes while at university:
On the one side, I knew a girl in university who was an English major. When I asked her what she planned to do with that degree, she answered:

"I don't care if I have to wait tables later. I am going to study what I'm interested in now."

I don't agree with her, but I at least respect her. She knew what she wanted and was willing to pay the price.

Then on the other side were people  --many-- getting into the Business or Engineering schools ONLY because that's where the bucks and prestige were.

OK. Fair enough. Each knew what they were biting off and were fully prepared for the consequences. 

What I find nauseating are those who --like squealing pigs-- are either willfully stupid, stubborn, obtuse and just plain block-headed....

OR...

who truly are IDIOTS who are not educated, cannot think and have learned nothing and then

CRY FOUL!
Oh....poor poor me.... (sniff, sniff).

Come on. Society has been convulsing with tectonic changes for the last 25 years.

Seriously.

How could anyone today even THINK you could find a job paying a living wage with a Creative Writing degree?

If I am an entrepreneur running a small company -- and most new businesses are small. In fact, the most vibrant part of the economy, the backbone, the ones that do most of the hiring are Small businesses.

Let's do a little though exercise:
As a small business owner - would YOU have any use for a Creative Writing graduate?

Let's see:

Can he or she...

Sell?
Write marketing materials?
Keep my books?
Program or network my computers?
Manage my client database?
Run my office?

...........

Hmmm.....  No on all counts?

Get the picture?
Multiply that several million times.

Sounds ridiculous that someone would choose such a useless major - doesn't it?...
Only to be bitterly surprised AFTER graduation?

Could it be --- (gasp!) that in 4 or 5 years our lauded graduate never once engaged in the preceeding thought excercise?

Either because he or she was TOO OBTUSE or TOO DENSE...

In the end, it sounds to me like these people are, if anything, OVER employed --- earning as much if not MORE than they are truly worth.

WSJ Does It Again

Why am I attacking the WSJ?
Simple.
I'm disappointed. But on a deeper level - I'm bothered by their very UNbusiness-like assumptions.

Recently - I've noticed that more and more articles have a socialist bent. The headlines, sub heads and story content are often written in such a way as to ASSUME (and we all remember the old line about assuming - right? You know: When you assume, you make and Ass out of U and Me.) that
a. Government is inherently good, even sacred.
b. Business is evil
c. People and governments DESERVE to share in the profits of business...

Let's take the first and show a very recent and disturbing example. Then let me offer the WSJ a rewrite. (This is what I'd write if I were the dude writing this article.)

Here goes: The headline from a recent story:
Tax Revolt in a Boom Town
Some Refineries Challenge Property Valuations, Threatening Municipal Revenue

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303717304577280050073230784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Booo Hoooo. If someone protests and challenges tax laws and rates, that will likely take money away from government. In this case that is city government.

GOOOD!

But notice the assumption of the headline that government being deprived of money is something to be avoided. Almost as if government and its well being has become sacred.

Something TOO many of us have begun taking unquestioningly. And protect -faithfully- with our very lives if necessary?

Hmmmm. Because the way I see it...
The less money government has, the less it can waste. The less it can use that money to build apparatuses that intrude on the lives of its citizens, forcing them to need apply for permission for the simplest action.

The less money overreaching government has, the fewer means it has to make everything a crime, then sell a pass for a price..
The less money it has, the less it can enrich itself at every turn while slowly enslaving its people....

Here's the way I would rewrite the headline:

Rewrite #1: Mild Rewrite

Tax Revolt in a Boom Town
Some Refineries Challenge Property Valuations, Forcing Municipality To Be Cut Waste

Or how about this version? It's a little more to the point...

Rewrite #2:
Companies Fight Back Against Grasping City Government
Move Forces Further Downsizing in Bloated, Intrusive Government Agencies Resulting In Improved Essential Services

It's always sad to see a great news outlet become the mouthpiece of a new socialist agenda which demonizes the very businesses which provide the fuel and brains which drive prosperity. But alas - the best we can do is recognise what's happening and at least read with a critical eye.

Just because the WSJ has lost its ability to think doesn't me we need to...