Flags Of Convenience

[Cameron]

The debate over using tax havens to save you money and avoid government policies has been around for awhile, I would like to examine this way of doing business and the ethics involved.

There was a story that I saw on the CBC's Disclosure that examined Canada Steamship Lines and Paul Martin's involvement with it. It went on to bring to light facts and hypocritical polices that Paul Martin implemented during his reign as Finance Minister.

The link is to the Disclosure website, and the story that was broadcast on CBC.

Website:

http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/0304...1_csl/main.html

Original Broadcast:

http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/media/030401_csl.ram

[maplesyrup]

Which flag of convenience does Prime Minister Paul Martin's Canada Steamship Lines fly?

Check out this web page to see for yourself, and also to express your point of view at:

http://www.flyourflag.ca/

I wonder what the average Canadian taxpayer thinks.

Very interestin' subject!

[Craig Read]

Martin bought CSL with tax money - guaranteeing a C$500 million loan. This is not to belittle his management of the firm - he rebuilt the company and increased its assets, net worth and international reach. But it is quite nice to have a tax subsidized $500 million head start.

Tax havens are necessary. I don't know why people are so outraged by tax havens. Without tax competition you would be at the mercy of the national gov't. If you can keep the money you make and earn I see nothing wrong with that. In any event in Canada on a personal and corporate tax submission you must declare all incomes earned. You would only be able to send offshore as a company a certain % of your profits and and as an individual if you live in Canada the same would apply.

Tax havens prevent rising taxation and keep gov'ts in line. Very few people use them, and as long as companies pay their fair share of taxes in Canada there is little wrong with allowing them to use havens. In fact part of the savings would be recycled back into profits, investments and job hiring. So havens' negative impacts are mitigated.

What is not defensible is to use havens' to launder money and avoid legal processes.

The OECD is trying to close tax loopholes in havens' and force the countries that are havens to report all incomes. So far they have failed in this initiative.

Let's hope they continue to fail.

[maplesyrup]

Craig....are you smokin' some of that illegal weed, or

what, eh? (Just kidding.)

So it's fine for Paul Martin to take a $500 million Canadian taxpayer subsidized loan, and then after he receives it, to go offshore with Canada Steamship Lines, to avoid paying Canadian taxes.

There's a sucker here, for sure, and it ain't Paul Martin.

Sure it may be legal (created by using high-priced tax lawyers, that most Canadians can't afford), but where are the ethics involved here?

You mention taxes like they are something evil.

Taxes are used to redistribute the wealth, which help to even out the playing field in our sociey, so those who are less fortunate are looked after.

Taxes are actually essential in any healthy society, and should be celebrated. Wthout them, we would have no public school system, no national medicare system, no public roads, no public transportation, no police services, and no national defence, to mention a few things. That is not the kind of country I, nor the vast majority of Canadians, I presume, would like to live in.

Government waste however is a separate issue, and a cause for concern.

Getting back to our tax system, charity sucks.

Instead of the rich deciding what the poor want, why not ask the poor what they would prefer? Or should the poor not be entitled to an opinion because they are poor?

The following article that was published yesterday in the Toronto Star is enlightening:

'Tis better to give than to receive'

'Don't just give alms to the poor, give them your political support'

Some years ago, I remember talking to a man who had been an alderman, and who was wondering why some of his constituents had not voted for him the next time he ran.

"I gave that family a turkey at Christmas," he said about one low-income family.

"But maybe they wanted you to make changes so that they could afford to buy their own turkey," I said. He did not get it.

At Christmas, everyone is ready to help the poor. Buy a kid a snowsuit. Pin a star on a tree so some poor kid gets a present. Take a poor family a basket of food.

Doesn't it make you feel good? Not if you're poor.

The people who feel good are the givers, not the receivers. And they are going to get mad if they do not end up feeling good.

I belonged to a women's organization that wanted to give away a basket one year. They asked me to find someone to whom they could give it.

I knew a woman who had recently been widowed and had six children. I phoned her and asked if she would feel okay about having a food basket delivered. She said sure, and when we arrived she invited us in and gave us coffee.

The next year when Christmas was coming around, one of the organizers hissed at me that the woman the year before had never sent a thank-you note.

When I was poor and pregnant with one of my children, another person said she could get me a new layette, but I would have to promise to write and thank the people who sent it, as they were tired of ungrateful recipients.

As if, when you are poor and pregnant and worn out, you have nothing to do but compose gracious letters thanking strangers for their charity. I declined, as I was lucky enough to have some of my other children's clothes, and I had neighbours who contributed without expecting thank-you notes.

I spoke at a women's meeting about women and poverty and I mentioned a few other examples, of people stuck with three washing machines in their basement, none of which worked, which had been "donated" to them, clothing from which all the zippers were missing,and so on. I finished with a ringing cry, "Don't give us your old clothes, give us your support!" I meant politically, of course.

After my speech, a woman came up to me and said she had some perfectly good enema equipment which she did not want to throw away and could I give her the name of someone who would appreciate it.

I just replied "I'm afraid not."

I am not advocating that you do not give to the snowsuit fund, or not put food in the food bank basket, or not drop money in the Salvation Army kettle. If that is the only way that poor children in this country can be warm and fed, then that is what we have to do. But nobody should expect to be crowned with a halo for doing that.

Every time they put something in the food basket they should be thinking, "Isn't there a better way to make sure that all families can afford to buy their own food?

"Shouldn't the poor be able to choose for themselves what they want to eat? Shouldn't a mother be able to count on enough money to buy her children the snowsuits and boots they need? Shouldn't the poor be able to count on the dignity of earned income and not the indignity of charity?"

What we wish for ourselves, we should wish for others.

By Dorothy O' Connell

[Craig Read]

Totally wrong. Martin used the C$500 and the profits created from his work paid it off plus a healthy profit. In this case the subsidy worked. Having said that gov't should never subsidise business and most subsidies fail miserably - it displaces private capital and distorts the system - but in Martin's defence he can state it was a good investment. It is not often i defend Mr. Martin btw.

As for taxes the arguments you put forward are rather silly. Yes we all know taxes should be paid - the question is - how is the money used ? Billions are wasted, corruption soft and hard is endemic in gov't and whole regions of Canada contribut nothing to the general coffers. High taxes destroy wealth, initiative, and innovation - and in general productivity - all of which are the key drivers to supporting your vaunted welfare system and standard of living.

Since when is competition bad ? Tax competition like any market based competition is healthy. Keep the havens they are a needed antidote to the socialists who feel that living off the alms of others is moral.

It is not - it is immature, immoral rot.