Goldman Sachs takes its profits offshore even as it begs for our tax dollars

@jerzgirl (8027)
Gloucester City, New Jersey
December 18, 2008 1:32pm CST
Goldman Sachs managed to reduce its US tax burden from 34% to 1% by moving its money offshore even as it was begging for tax money to help it survive. Is there anyone out there who doesn't think the level of greed by this particular industry exceeds their deserving to exist??? Here's the story: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Goldman_Sachs_tax_rate_drops_to_1218.html Unbelievable arrogance, I think, to move money to overseas countries with lower tax rates and THEN to beg money from the country you're no longer paying taxes to!!! Personally, I think they should be required to bring the money back or lose the loan. What do you think?
2 people like this
4 responses
• Australia
21 Dec 08
I almost didn't answer, I seem to be suffering the kind of "greed" burnout that a lot of people talk about in relation to "poverty" burnout. There's just so many times you can get indignant and rant about it. The answer flies in the face of conventional free market rhetoric - legislate the mongrels out of business in the country they are ripping off, and certainly don't bail them out, spend the money instead on unemployment relief for workers who can prove that their jobs were lost as a clear result of this company's demise. Lash
3 people like this
@sharra1 (6342)
• Australia
21 Dec 08
I agree with you. I am getting a burnout of the same kind. There are only so many times you can get cross and then you just walk away and feel bitter that nothing we do or say will make any difference.
2 people like this
@jerzgirl (8027)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
21 Dec 08
I'm feeling much the same way, but this one just pushed all the wrong buttons and I felt it needed to be announced to the world, literally, how greedy these slimeballs are. They don't deserve one red cent - they should be allowed to fail. Admittedly, thousands of people would be financially hurt by this, but hey - stocks and bonds is only another form of gambling, as I see it, and when you put your money into buying them, you are aware there is a risk of loss. If you don't want to lose your money, don't put it all in one place. This is also why I am opposed to mandatory 401Ks - why should I risk my retirement money? Not that I have any, but the concept is one I just don't like. It's bad enough unions used to make off with the pensions, or the employers who went out of businesses taking the retirement fund with them. Why should we be forced to take chances with risky investments (and ALL investments carry risk - not just some). But, I have avoided political discussions, people who can't let go after the election who keep harping on eligibility, connections, mysteries, etc, that didn't cause a problem before and won't cause a problem now. I figure it's time to let go and move on. Believe me - there will be other "causes" coming up. People in general, especially politicians, are too corrupt to stay clean forever. (Blagovich heard the trumpet call and immediately stepped forward, right?)
1 person likes this
• Australia
21 Dec 08
I can justly claim I saw the writing on the wall twelve months ago and convinced my partner to transfer her superannuation fund into cash and out of shares just before the crash started. This is the only power we have over our super funds here. Sure, she's barely getting over inflation rate now on her money, but all the various risk level share portfolios are losing hand over fist, and seem likely to for some time. The point of this is that I agree with you about compulsory super; I can understand why governments insist on it, since with the changing demographic it becomes harder and harder for them to cope with age pensions unless more people can be made ineligible by means test, as a good superannuation payment does, but without more control over our own money we all face the risk of losing everything if the company goes down. That said, in Australia we are government guaranteed - if it does go down the government will make good our super, but even so. Lash
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6342)
• Australia
21 Dec 08
Well the government should demand its money back in that case since they are no longer paying taxes in your country. The government should have stopped it taking its money overseas. Tax havens like that have caused massive problems and is how the rich avoid taxes and leave the burden on the poor.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
21 Dec 08
They said they could "call back" the money for the auto companies, right? Well, they should be able to do so with this company as well and stop them from moving offshore like they do. Annie
2 people like this
@jerzgirl (8027)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
21 Dec 08
One of the reasons for the auto money callback is because Bush didn't have the authority to loan any of the bailout money to them. Congress is the only place appropriations can be approved, and that money had been approved for Wall Street. However, if the financial institutions can't and don't live up to sound financial accountability, then they should also lose the money.
2 people like this
• United States
21 Dec 08
typical. i am so sick of these companies hitting us up for money while they're living high on the hog themselves.they should definetly be made to give it back.
@jerzgirl (8027)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
21 Dec 08
I know - they immediately started planning bonuses as soon as they heard they got the money. How in God's name can someone be rewarded for failing???? They fire CEOs for failure to maintain profitability and then give them golden parachute payments worth millions!! So, WHO FAILED to maintain profitability? The CEO or the corporate bonus culture??? Let them fail. Screw them.
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Dec 08
exactly. did you hear what they said yesterday about "we don't have to account for what we spend on?" that'd be it for me if i were government.getting pulled right now.
• Philippines
23 Dec 08
At long last...