Are there any, honest rich people? Or are they all greedy scum?

I completely agree with him that UBS should not be allowed to conduct any more business.

So when is somone going to suggest charges and jail time? If we're going to do this, lets do this for real. I want accountability, and a full investigation.

Wow, smuggling diamonds in. Just wow.

Well if you ask me the IRS are the criminals so these guys are really heroes, now if only they would help me figure out a way to not pay taxes...

@dtmoore: As someone who pays taxes so you and your kids can use our schools and hospitals, and police and fire dept, I don't take to kindly to tax evasion. If you don't want to pay taxes to the U.S., get the hell out, and good luck making your money in someone else's country.

Good thing the rich got that bush tax break. It would have been a tragedy if they had to pay more tax on the money they allowed the gov't to know they had.

@dtmoore:

I agree this whole tax this is BS but why are these people heroes? Who are they helping besides themselves? Who are they hurting besides everyone else who has to pay?

@snoop-blog: Which is why I am a firm supporter of consumption based taxes rather than a blanket income tax. Roads should be paid for with gas taxes, if you don't have kids, you shouldn't be paying for schools, you get the idea.

And as long as we're talking about this great country, we revolted from england for taxation that was extremely minuscule compared to what we are paying today, not to mention the fact that the taxes we do pay go to programs which the federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to run in the first place.

If you don't want to understand your rights and duties as a citizen granted by the constitution and instead follow a unconstitutional government blindly, then seriously get the hell out of my country. You are just part of the problem.

@FilthyHarry: i was being facetious.

@dtmoore: We revolted because of taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Not just cause of taxes.

@dtmoore: Well I was being an ass :)

Re: Smuggling diamonds.

I wonder if that one dude from The Usual Suspects thought of the tube of toothpaste method instead of the velvet bag? Could have saved him some grief. Oh, and his diamonds.

@dtmoore: No I don't get the idea. Just because you don't have children, you don't want to support our school system? That's pretty selfish thinking there.

@FilthyHarry: The interesting thing is, Tax revenues from this group of wealthy people actually go up when there are tax breaks, meaning more revenue collected than the IRS collected with the higher tax rate.

The reason is that it becomes less worth the risk, hassle, and cost to hide assets so as the rate goes down more money is declared and taxed and collected. As rates go up the money just "disappears" leading to the IRS actually losing money rather than gaining on the increase.

@dtmoore: Some people actually came to america to avoid religious persecution.

@FilthyHarry: So when does D.C. Get to revolt? I have no representation.

Encrypted Computers is on this list?

Yeah, because I really want my personal information on a hard drive where someone can come in and steal the drive and read my information.

Senator...your own employer (Federal Govt) is putting rules into place requiring all govt computers are encrypted...

And just because we did something 100 years ago doesn't mean it's okay by today's standards. Back then we owned slaves, is that American to you? Back then we killed the indians, so is that also acceptable to you? Give me a break, Justifying what these greedy bastards are doing by citing history that's decades old? Who do you think you are fooling? Yourself that's all.

If this was Best Buy or Circut City, Or boa, Or wal-mart etc. on here being accused of dodgeing taxes we'd all be in an uproar. Well this should be no different when it's an individual evading taxes. I can tell you that if everybody quit paying taxes, there wouldn't be anyone there to stop me from taking your money and beating your ass up.

@dtmoore: Roads should be paid for with gas taxes, if you don't have kids, you shouldn't be paying for schools, you get the idea.

Only problem with that thinking is that you indirectly benefit from these things in your community even if you don't use them yourself. The road is a necessary infrastructure allowing you to have a fire department and police respond, allowing things to be delivered to you so you don't personally have to use the road, etc. Same with the school. You benefit by having the kid at mcdonalds being able to add 2+2 even if it isn't your kid, and you benefit by having informed people in the community making good decisions as an indirect benefit that is in your interest.

Pshh... UBS should be shutdown? Why are they being treated like the Umbrella Corporation? They didn't cause a biohazard or anything. They helped thousands of Americans save money that would be otherwise wasted on pork politics... Wait this money is being wasted on pork, who do you think is pocketing lobbyist money?

@Tmoney02: Well he'd have to understand how a society works to get all that. He's too selfish to think that far outside the box.

And Roz, I'm attacking his ideas, not him personally...

And this isn't the first shady thing in recent years UBS got caught in. Remember the ol' axis of evil?

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Here is the gist:
"UBS has admitted supplying Iran, Cuba, Libya and Saddam Hussein's Iraq with dollars obtained through a US Federal Reserve scheme."

What a bunch of ASSHOLES!

Side issue: If they go out of business how will I plug in keyboard and mouse to my computer?

The only thing more amazing than the trouble rich people go to in order to avoid paying taxes is the amount of tax dollars their companies take away from the rest of us.

Not only do we pay more, we get less. Did the Grocery Shrink Ray miss it's target and strike the national budget?

It seems like there is a lot they should be doing before they even get to the criminal charges or fines.
They shoud start off by making UBS pay taxes on 18 billion at the highest rate, then track down the source of funds in these "undeclared" accounts and make those people pay the equivalent taxes at the highest rate, and possibly even confiscate all the "undeclared" money. After that they can dish out appropriate fines, jail time, or other punishments.

Bah, just build more prisons and put EVERYONE in jail.

Seriously though, we need to get back to a healthy 90% tax rate for the richest 1% of this country. All of you saps that think that is so unfair because you have this pipe dream that you someday will be in that 1% need a heavy dose of reality. The 1% lives and feeds off of our labors every single day. Its time to make them pay!

@snoop-blog: Snoop, what makes you think BB, CC or BOA pays taxes? Many companies incorporate offshore or use a variety of shell companies to avoid taxes.

U.S. corporations shifted $75 billion of their profits into tax havens in 2003, depriving the IRS of between $10 billion and $20 billion in expected tax revenue, according to a study in Tax Notes, a tax trade journal [www.commondreams.org]

Don't people understand, you can't tax the superrich.
It just isn't practical, they can, with very little overhead, afford to hire armies of lawyers and accountants to hid their assets.
They can afford to match the IRS toe to toe.

Which is why it's absurd when people say we should "just tax the top 1% more".
And if we enact really strict tax laws and do everything we can to seize the assets of the super rich, do you know what they will do?
They will just move their assets to Dubai, or Hong Kong.

@SkokieGuy: You know what I meant... Lets not derail this topic. Skokie you are number one threadjacker. Just playin.

@dtmoore:

Unconstitutional? Well, hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court (you know, the organization whose job it is to determine these things) has found them Constitutional. You may not like that interpretation of the Commerce Clause. If you don't, your options are:

1. deal with it
2. leave
3. get an amendment passed to clarify that your reading of the Commerce Clause is the one that should be used by the courts

This will most likely go nowhere fast. It would probably be a safe bet to assume that there are numerous senators, congressmen, judges, etc on that list that will make sure this doesn't have legs to stand on.

@Tmoney02:

I'm still for a consumption tax to replace the current income tax scheme. We would save plenty of money just on cutting out the IRS. (not sure what the current IRS budget is, but it is huge). We would have less incentive for people to try to hide money, cheat on their taxes, and more economic stimulation (take more money home, spend more money). It would encourage entreprenurial spirit (try to do small business taxes...the depreciation charts alone will make you cry). And people would be taxed based on consumption, which means if you want to buy a 2000 handbag, you'll be taxed/punished accordingly. But if you want to save that money and invest it, you'll be rewarded accordingly, which is currently NOT the case.

This will likely go nowhere fast because certainly a significant number of the 19,000 people who USB helped hide funds includes members of Congress, major political donors and more.

How exactly does an American senator plan to shut down a Swiss company? Sure they could shutter their US operations, but the money is all actually in Switzerland, and shutting down their American arm would seem to me to relieve them of any obligation to comply with US banking laws. Also, wouldn't a Swiss bank tend to have a foreign area code anyway? (I'm guessing "+41".)

I also wish I could have faith that all of my American bank's computers used some sort of strong encryption, but I'm afraid I'm not that naive.

In fact, I used to live in Switzerland and I've still got CHF 34 in my UBS account. Excuse me while I go turn myself in. (I figure I'd better do it while Bush is still in office and high rollers like me can count on the support of the justice department.)

@dtmoore: I find it strange that Republicans are the first to talk about the Constitution when it comes to government programs and guns. Anything else (rights of privacy, warrants, trial by jury, civil rights, separation of church an state, etc.), suddenly, the Constitution is meaningless.

@Tmoney02: Ah, a loyal Bushie. Bush said that rich people would just find loopholes, so why tax them? By that logic, why prosecute fraud, people will still commit it. The key isn't to throw your arms up and give up. Its to have laws, enforce those laws, and have penalties that strongly discourage this behaviour. With the current administration, criminality is essentially ignored when they don't agree with the policy (see environmental prosecutions, civil rights prosecutions, etc.). So, while they didn't cause this, they created an legal environment where the risk of getting caught is low and the penalties compared to the savings are even lower.

@theblackdog: Yeah, you know I have to kind of agree. Personally, I would like to think that encrypted computers and some form of file shredding (for old files/documents/etc.) would be standard practice in general in the banking industry and not some form of "secrecy trick."

@JaguarChick: Amendment XVI of the Constitution allows the government to collect income taxes. While you may be in favor of it, it is not unconstitutional.

The budget of the IRS is 11.6 Billion. For comparison:

The Iraq war is 5 years and 500 Billion. So roughly 100 Billion per year. So the Iraq war is 10x more expensive than the IRS.

Oil companies will get around 5-8 Billion in tax breaks.

Where's your outrage there?

How do we pay for Police, fire, infrastructure, etc.?

If they eliminated income tax and put in a VAT, poor people loose big time: 1) since they spend more of their money on necessities and it will be taxed at a higher rate, far outweighing any benefit from the elimination of the income tax burden. Most federal programs would be eliminated: No school, no health care, no scholarship, no training programs, nothing.

@Tmoney02: Do you have a source for that information? To me, the proposition of tax evasion wouldn't be because I'm being taxed too much, but because I'm being taxed at all. If suddenly I only had to pay half my taxes, I still don't think I'd say "that sounds okay. Here, this is some of the money I was keeping for myself. You can have it now."

@Tmoney02: You also benefit from the moochers that sit on the welfare and don't provide back to the community. What social benefit is there in blatantly telling the underprivileged that they can get something for free? A consumption tax at least recycles the responsibility, instead of putting it all on the shoulders of working people, as is the case with income tax. Of course, I can't argue whether each is an "efficient" tax, only if it's a "fair" tax.

I don't like being taxed at all, but I doubt zero tax could even be realized. That puts the tax evaders on my naughty list. It's just impossible to morally shrug this off as an okay thing to do, no matter how unfair it is.

@JaguarChick: I'm still for a consumption tax to replace the current income tax scheme.

I actually agree with the consumption tax replacing the income tax, at least in theory.

The question for me becomes how will revenues compare to income taxes? The real money comes from big ticket items, so will people buy their yachts from Canada rather than America and avoid the taxes? I guess the import taxes could go up but that would anger all our trading partners and destroy all the work the G-8 Summits and such have been working towards, open trading with no import taxes, allowing the world economy to be the most efficient it can be.
Also how would it affect the American market. Wall street is surviving by getting people to consume products they don't need. By putting a big penalty on frivolous consumption how will the market cope? Of course considering the negative savings rate America has it seems like this problem is coming one way or another.

UBS' misdeeds go back, at least, to WWII.

@dtmoore: Consumption based disproportionally targets low income people.

It is not a good idea. If you went that route, the rich would get even richer, and the poor even poorer.

How timely! I just received an email from Ravinia, (a Chicago suburban music venue located in a rather upscale area)- sponsored by USB.

Perhaps we shouldn't bash them, because clearly they contribute back to the community.

/ sarcasm off

@ARP: Ah, a loyal Bushie.

I am hereby stating a new law called "Tmoney's law"
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving "Bushie(s)" or Bush approaches one.

Now hopefully you have thought about this law and said you know, perhaps calling a person a "Bushie" based on one policy opinion is pretty stupid. I should cool my jets.

Moving on to your point I actually gasp agree with you! We should do more to catch tax evasion and do everything we can, but on the other side we should recognize 1) enforcement can be very expensive and very difficult, especially in areas such as tax evasion.
2) It might be more cost effective by lowering the tax than spending tens of millions of man hours and dollars to only catch a fraction of the evaders.

@chrisjames: Nobody likes being taxed. Most of us are just smart enough to realize that it's necessary to make any government and society actually work.

Plus, the "welfare queen" stereotype is pretty much just a strawman argument these days. No matter what kind of tax system you have, somebody is going to take unfair advantage of it, and people on every point of the economic spectrum will find their own ways to do so. This argument just distracts from discussing the actual purpose and necessity of taxation. The idea is to maximize benefit to everybody, while minimizing that kind of wrongdoing. Give me a system that works at 100% efficiency and I'll give you a Nobel Prize.

@ARP: I'm not a republican.

@Pixelantes Anonymous: No it targets people that use the services to the degree of which they use the services. What you are talking about is graduated socialism (what we have now).

@JustThatGuy3: I'm talking about little things like oh I dunno, going to war without a declaration of war from congress. Apparently if we don't call it a war then all is good.

@ARP: since they spend more of their money on necessities and it will be taxed at a higher rate, far outweighing any benefit from the elimination of the income tax burden. Most federal programs would be eliminated: No school, no health care, no scholarship, no training programs, nothing.

Two questions, Couldn't we still have W-2's and if your income is under a certain amount have some sort of general rebate?
Second wouldn't the money collected in this consumption tax go to the federal government replacing the income tax money and thus allowing all those federal programs.