This is what those who believe in these contentions hope happens.

However, empirically, what we have seen, especially in the case of the ultra-rich larger corporations, is the transfer of their profits to offshore banks to escape federal and state corporate taxation or investment in non-business expansionary related things like real estate, with both actions not contributing to the increase of workers wage or salaries and, in the case of real estate, contributing to the creation of unsustainable real estate bubbles.

Can you give specific examples where corporations were allowed to legally transfer profits they earned in the US to off-shore banks to keep from paying taxes?

My understanding is, if the money is earned in the US, it's subject to taxation.  There's no way to put that money in offshore banks and avoid taxes -- legally, that is. 

If the money is earned overseas, THEN they can stockpile that cash in banks.  The high US corporate tax rate is what's been preventing these companies from investing that money in the US, because as soon as they bring it into the US, they owe income tax on it.  That's like voluntarily handing over 20% of their cash reserves to Uncle Sam.  If you're talking about billions, that 20% is a huge hit to your liquid capital.  It helps explain why many companies opened stores and operations overseas, so they can pay less tax, or no tax, on that money.

It is a positive sign when a company starts buying back it's own shares of stock.

It's a way of making a business look great when earnings suck. Plus it's a way to executives who get a large percentage of their compensation packages in stock to jack up the price and then liquidate before the reality sets in for everyone else.

Stock buybacks used to be illegal for a reason, and are a huge red flag that underlying fundamentals are seriously broken.

It's a way of making a business look great when earnings suck. Plus it's a way to executives who get a large percentage of their compensation packages in stock to jack up the price and then liquidate before the reality sets in for everyone else.

Stock buybacks used to be illegal for a reason, and are a huge red flag that underlying fundamentals are seriously broken.

I would like to see your proof that this is the rule rather than the exception.

Can you give specific examples where corporations were allowed to legally transfer profits they earned in the US to off-shore banks to keep from paying taxes?

I'm guessing that you don't understand how offshore tax havens work because you don't want to understand, and if that's the case trying to have an honest conversation is a waste of time and energy.

I'm guessing that you don't understand how offshore tax havens work because you don't want to understand, and in that's the case trying to have an honest conversation is a waste of time and energy.

For someone who doesn't know me, you make a lot of silly assumptions. All I did was ask for some proof to back up what you said and you are making excuses as to why you won't provide any. I think your motives are quite obvious.

For someone who doesn't know me, you make a lot of silly assumptions. All I did was ask for some proof to back up what you said and you are making excuses as to why you won't provide any. I think your motives are quite obvious.

That was a Flapp Quote I was responding to, not yours. I don't think you are being willfully ignorant. You just happened to fall victim to Wall Street propaganda.

And my motives are to warn you that there's a crash coming that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park so that you aren't completely caught off guard when this whole illusion fails like it always does.

That was a Flapp Quote I was responding to, not yours. I don't think you are being willfully ignorant. You just happened to fall victim to Wall Street propaganda.

And my motives are to warn you that there's a crash coming that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park so that you aren't completely caught off guard when this whole illusion fails like it always does.

Oh yes, you are quite right. Sorry about that.

You still are avoiding providing some backup to what you stated. I did ask nicely and have ignored your insults. I would hope you have something to back up your statements.

The problem with your assumption about companies buying back their stock just to make their companies look great when their earnings suck is that their earnings still suck no matter how you look at the bottom line. Stock values will still go down when they don't hit their projected earnings. So it becomes clearly obvious what they are trying to do. Good and savvy investors will flee a company's stock if that occurs. But this example is more the exception rather than the rule. So does it really matter if a very small percentage of companies actually do something like this? They suffer the financial and rules consequences if they attempt to do this.

Saying the market is going to crash sometime in the future is like saying it is going to rain someday. Of course it is going to crash. It always does. Just like it always rains someday. The trick is to tell everyone here WHEN it is going to crash. So if you really want to do me and everyone else here as favor, tell us when. Doesn't have to be a exact date, I'm interested in maybe a 6 month span that it will occur. BTW, I'm not saying your wrong, as I am not arguing with you. I just want to know what you do.

And BTW, as of early 2008 (I think in March) I have been out of the market completely. With a very small exception. I missed the crash by 5 or 6 months. BTW, I did the same thing in November 1999. I missed the 2000 crash by a few months. I understand the market, business and finance quite well.

investment in non-business expansionary related things like real estate, ..., contributing to the creation of unsustainable real estate bubbles.

wait, are you saying that real estate bubbles are caused by corporations buying real estate?

Everyone here already knows the market will eventually crash.
Everyone here is just waiting for you to say when. 
Puna asked like 3 pages ago and you just ignored him.

Wasn't ignoring anyone just got busy and haven't been checking this thread regularly. Demanding that I make a timeline prediction is a way of avoiding the subject of cause and effect. Is it fair to say that because I don't know on which day the next flash flood warning will be issued that I must not understand how weather patterns work?

Inspector conceded a very important point just now and everyone missed it. There are crashes that happen with enough regularity that anyone can predict the next one is inevitable, but instead of asking why unregulated Capitalism seems to have a self-destruct mechanism built in the media has us obsessed with getting out in time and making money on the way down. Nevermind the millions of Americans who lose their jobs and savings and wind up on the street while kids turn to prostitution just to get an education.

We are taking this for granted as if it's a force of nature, but if I point out that there are certain patterns (one of which is tax breaks for the ultra wealthy that lead to massive bubbles and rob the real economy of investment capital) that means I must be Marxist.

Taking a sophist approach might help you feel better about ganging up on somebody with groupthink, but you are actually doing more to promote the cause of Marxism among the growing number of for whom the American Dream sounds more like a cruel hoax. When enough people realize the conventional wisdom is FOS I'm sure there will be a lot more interest in even worse arrangements than the one we have now. Nice job, Comrades.

Wasn't ignoring anyone just got busy and haven't been checking this thread regularly. Demanding that I make a timeline prediction is a way of avoiding the subject of cause and effect. Is it fair to say that because I don't know on which day the next flash flood warning will be issued that I must not understand how weather patterns work?

Inspector conceded a very important point just now and everyone missed it. There are crashes that happen with enough regularity that anyone can predict the next one is inevitable, but instead of asking why unregulated Capitalism seems to have a self-destruct mechanism built in the media has us obsessed with getting out in time and making money on the way down. Nevermind the millions of Americans who lose their jobs and savings and wind up on the street while kids turn to prostitution just to get an education.

We are taking this for granted as if it's a force of nature, but if I point out that there are certain patterns (one of which is tax breaks for the ultra wealthy that lead to massive bubbles and rob the real economy of investment capital) that means I must be Marxist.

Taking a sophist approach might help you feel better about ganging up on somebody with groupthink, but you are actually doing more to promote the cause of Marxism among the growing number of for whom the American Dream sounds more like a cruel hoax. When enough people realize the conventional wisdom is FOS I'm sure there will be a lot more interest growing in even worse arrangements than the one we have now. Nice job, Comrades.

so we're all idiots because we don't see what you are seeing?
nice...

so we're all idiots because we don't see what you are seeing?
nice...

Proud to say I haven't insulted anyone yet. Not unless you consider being disagreed with an insult.

I'm guessing that you don't understand how offshore tax havens work because you don't want to understand, and if that's the case trying to have an honest conversation is a waste of time and energy.

As Inspector said, "For someone who doesn't know me, you make a lot of silly assumptions. All I did was ask for some proof to back up what you said and you are making excuses as to why you won't provide any. I think your motives are quite obvious."

If you can't have a discussion without deflecting from the question asked, then don't even start.  Do you KNOW of these tax havens, or do you simply repeat what the anti-capitalist conspiracy sites feed you?

It's a waste of time and energy for you to think an insult is going to brush me off.  Either you have examples, or you don't.  Try being honest, and answer the question.  As I said, I have a different understanding, based on actual public information I've read.  Got anything like that??

Proud to say I haven't insulted anyone yet. Not unless you consider being disagreed with an insult.

I think calling someone you don't know "willfully ignorant" qualifies as an insult.  ("because you don't want to understand" == willfully ignorant)

So, now you've insulted someone, AND you lied about it.   

And my motives are to warn you that there's a crash coming that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park so that you aren't completely caught off guard when this whole illusion fails like it always does.

sounds to me like you think you are telling us something we don't know...

I think calling someone you don't know "willfully ignorant" qualifies as an insult. 

So, now you've insulted someone, AND you lied about it.   

Either you can't understand how offshore tax havens work, or you refuse to. I just made and educated guess based on your past ability to seemingly grasp more complex concepts

Either you can't understand how offshore tax havens work, or you refuse to. I just made and educated guess based on your past ability to seemingly grasp more complex concepts

You post on here as if you have all the answers, but you won't share them because we don't already know as much as you?

That seems like a total cop-out. 

sounds to me like you think you are telling us something we don't know...

But why does it happen? It seems like that's a more worthy topic of discussion than playing "gotcha last"

Either you can't understand how offshore tax havens work, or you refuse to. I just made and educated guess based on your past ability to seemingly grasp more complex concepts

As I said, the earnings placed in offshore banks as tax havens must be earned outside the US.  You can't sell cars in the US and then TRANSFER (your word) that profit to offshore banks.

Seems like you just want to argue.  Either that, or you have a few gaps in your knowledge.

How Do Tax Havens Work?

Tax havens provide offshore banking services to foreign individuals and businesses that allow them to avoid
paying income taxes in their countries of residence. For example, a large corporation might establish an offshore
subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and direct all sales through the subsidiary rather than through the parent
company based in the United States. In this case, the shell corporation earns the company's profits and is
subject to the tax laws of the Cayman Islands rather than the United States. Instead of being subject to the
U.S. corporate tax rate, which stood at 38.9% in 2017, the company's profits are subject to whatever corporate
or income taxes apply in the Caymans.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100215/why-cayman-islands-considered-tax-haven.asp#ixzz52ot6Cic6

But why does it happen? It seems like that's a more worthy topic of discussion than playing "gotcha last"

sorry, you brought it up, so why don't you start a new topic and explain it to all of us who you think don't understand?