You have to compare at least a few dozen base pairs before you can see the uncanny way that organisms in the same genus match up far better than organisms in different classes for example.
So I am expanding on these arguments here.
It is a gripping story: This page shows why every one of the major arguments put up in defence of tax havens, bar one, are wrong. One has to understand, before reading any of this, two things. In my book I define a tax haven as: I explain why in Treasure Islands. The OECD has ushered in a new era of transparency.
This is entirely, utterly false. The OECD has delivered a whitewash. A lot of journalists have bought into the lie. But as Treasure Islands explains, the offshore system is as strong as ever.
Free for the fox — not quite so free for the chickens. Tax havens are pro-free markets and pro-business. They give advantages to multinationals over their smaller, more locally-based competitors, which have nothing to do with the quality or price of their goods and services.
They distort and corrupt markets — as Treasure Islands describes in grisly detail. Because their companies do so much of this via tax havens, countries have often not bothered signing appropriate tax treaties with each other.
But there is something else. Tax havens not only help prevent so-called double taxation — but they create something else entirely: Not only do the corporations avoid getting taxed twice — they avoid getting taxed at all!
This is a problem for all countries — but particularly developing ones. They get rich off the fees the multinationals pay them: For my answer to this, see my Guardian article on the subject, entitled 10 reasons we should tax corporations.
Also see Citizens for Tax Justice on why corporate taxes do not represent double taxation see point 4 and this document on why the incidence of corporate taxes falls largely on capital, rather than on labour.
First, we need to get away from this idea that tax is simply a cost. Tax is a distribution to society, out of profits. It is a payment in exchange for services provided that allow them to make those profits — the healthy and educated workforces, the infrastructure, the guarantee of contracts and the rule of law — and so on.
Second, those companies that engage in tax avoidance are engaging in economic free riding — they are taking the benefits from a country without paying for it.
This is not only unfair, but it is economically harmful, undermines respect for the rule of law, and distorts markets. Third, nowhere in the world does company law require directors to take actions that are not disclosed to their shareholders.
There is also no company law that says directors have a duty only to shareholders. I say it is a duty of directors to maximise distribution to all stakeholders in economic processes.
Read more on this topic here. To go from arguing that poor governance is a cause of illicit financial outflows, tax evasion and so on — which is correct — to arguing that we therefore should not even consider the other side of the coin the recipients of all these outflows is quite patently a ridiculous logical step.
What we find is not pretty. Providing elites in developing countries with untaxed, criminalised financial bolt-holes actively and dramatically undermines governance in these countries. Offshore secrecy protects people victimised by criminals and despotic governments.
This is only true in a very narrow sense: If there is an unjust law or bad government, then to provide an escape route for a small, wealthy and powerful elite — the only constituency with the political strength to drive reform — is to undermine pressure for change.Arguments for and Against Complex Regulation in Banking limits as they can to avoid crisis.
Yet, it cannot be denied that among the sectors “affected” by regulation, the area of banking is one of the most important. There’s a difference between trying to negotiate on T-bills, which is ridiculous and unworkable, and prosecuting women who get abortions/encouraging reprisals against innocent civilians/censoring communications/using the courts to beat down your opponents, most of which have been hugely effective tactics for establishing political control at one point or other.
An argument about regulation. A lot of people a lot of the time underestimate how burdensome, onerous, and intrusive complicated bureaucratic rules and regulations are.
The arguments about regulation’s costs for the latter groups are good arguments! But they’re arguments that it’s wicked to selectively forget when it comes to. Arguments for and Against Complex Regulation in Banking Essay Words Dec 23rd, 5 Pages It is a well-known fact that nowadays every .
Six Arguments Against Government Regulations. By Tom Lehman So, what are some of the economic arguments against government regulation? Why do regulations so often cause more harm than good, and why might deregulation actually be a good idea?
Just because CBA of government regulation is difficult and complex does not mean we . This page argues the case against bullfighting in a new and distinctive way.