EPTThe Falklands or las Malvinas? - Page 11
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Cain0
United Kingdom608 Posts
| ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On June 18 2011 06:02 ElPeque.fogata wrote: Yup. Argentina is putting a lot of pressure to force uruguay to share its banking information so they can tax money that argentinians have in uruguay. FATF standards are just a tool for powerful countries to force others to do what they want. A country should be free to set its own laws and standards regarding how they organize their taxes. In the end, its about freedom. Not only corporations compete, countries also compete. To compete you have to be efficient. Inneficient countries (very high taxes) lose competitivity against countries that have low taxes. That is plain simple. But polititians need high taxes to make politics. They need money to "do stuff" to then take credit for it. So how do they solve the ecuation? They FORCE other countries to also tax so they will not be more efficient and thus run them out of business. How? Like with FATF, OCDE, etc. And if you fail to comply, they impose extra tariffs and stuff on you. Its the new way of colonialism. The other part of the irony, is that besides the "money laundering argument", Uruguay is within the less corrupt countries in the world, wereas Argentina is within the most corrupt. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results And it all works against all of us in the end. Attacking countries with low taxes, or "tax havens" as they say, is the best way of letting your own country tax the hell out of you and getting away with it. Competition man. Its good. Tax havens serve to erode the competitiveness of low taxes, not help them. If you can arbitrarily move money into a tax haven, you can take advantage of the low costs of a low tax region, while getting the increased governmental services of a high tax region. For example, 60% of Fortune 500 is incorporated in the tiny US state of Delaware. These companies are not headquartered in Delaware in any real sense, they maybe have a legal team there at most. The reason that it is the case is because it allows them to avoid the higher corporate taxes found in most states, while still operating in those states. Their employees, and the companies, get all the benefits from state taxes, in the state they are actually headquartered, but the companies do not contribute to them. | ||
|
Ganjamaster
Argentina475 Posts
 | ||
|
ElPeque.fogata
Uruguay462 Posts
On June 18 2011 06:32 InvalidID wrote: Tax havens serve to erode the competitiveness of low taxes, not help them. If you can arbitrarily move money into a tax haven, you can take advantage of the low costs of a low tax region, while getting the increased governmental services of a high tax region. For example, 60% of Fortune 500 is incorporated in the tiny US state of Delaware. These companies are not headquartered in Delaware in any real sense, they maybe have a legal team there at most. The reason that it is the case is because it allows them to avoid the higher corporate taxes found in most states, while still operating in those states. Their employees, and the companies, get all the benefits from state taxes, in the state they are actually headquartered, but the companies do not contribute to them. Well. I see your point. It's complex. I don't understand completely how that works within the same country. So the fairness of existence of delaware is a US domestic problem. I mean... your government, right?. But about countries... I mean.... Country A may choose to give their citizens a lot of welfare, health, education, whatever by collecting a lot of tax for that purpose (even though it may end up paying for a war, or whatever else). Country B may choose not to do so, expecting to attract more investors and thus improving the life of its citizens as a consecuence of high employment, etc. Then what? B citizens are not enjoying citizen A's welfare programs. It's just a different trade off. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On June 18 2011 07:28 ElPeque.fogata wrote: Well. I see your point. It's complex. I don't understand completely how that works within the same country. So the fairness of existence of delaware is a US domestic problem. I mean... your government, right?. But about countries... I mean.... Country A may choose to give their citizens a lot of welfare, health, education, whatever by collecting a lot of tax for that purpose (even though it may end up paying for a war, or whatever else). Country B may choose not to do so, expecting to attract more investors and thus improving the life of its citizens as a consecuence of high employment, etc. Then what? B citizens are not enjoying citizen A's welfare programs. It's just a different trade off. The problem he is talking about is when citizens from Country A are able to send their money to Country B while still living in County A. They will enjoy the benefits from a higher tax collection, while paying the small amount of taxes from Country B. So, yes, Country B citizens are not enjoying Country A's welfare program, but Country A citizens are enjoying both Country A welfare and Country B's low tax rates. Wheter this is what's happening between Argentina and Uruguay, I have no idea. | ||
|
ElPeque.fogata
Uruguay462 Posts
On June 18 2011 06:32 Ganjamaster wrote: I did not say uruguay is corrupt, I say Uruguay enables corruption through its lax financial system, which it does, even if uruguay itsrlf is not corrupt. You need to do this as you have no real industry or production to generate capital. Money laundering is good evidently, We don't have much industry because as i said, we have no scale, and provided Brazil and Argentina block our exports..... But i think you don't give us enough credit. Even though on average Argentinian land is more fertile, ours is very good. So we mainly live on either that or services. Like me, i produce software  .You are very naive if you think we do better than you just because we accept argentinian money into our banks. Our unemployment is under 6% now, and we have less poverty than Argentina. And not all of us work in banks or financial institutions. Actually, that is only a small percetage. And during the financial crysis, we even went on growing unlike argentina. Mainly because the world didn't stop eating hamburguers. And mainly, because the Chinese can now pay for hamburguers. Uruguay's growth. 8.5% (2010 est.) 2.6% (2009 est.) 8.6% (2008 est.) Argentina's growth. 7.5% (2010 est.) -3% (2009 est.) 5% (2008 est.) Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html And again... If we are doing better... That is just because you are sucking very much. Cause i know we suck and are doing better with much worse conditions. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
Argentina has no argument for this claim other than "it's closer to us, than to the UK!" The people living there are not argentineans, they don't want to be a part of Argentina and the UK has exercised de facto sovereignty there for hundreds of years. And then the autoritarian dictatorship tried to take them hoping it would boost nationalism and keep them in power, they failed, that should have been the end of the story. PD: Relevant song: Metal, always makes everything better. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
If you are really interested to discuss this, you can PM me back. Stop derailing the thread, or open one about Argentinian politics. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
Then give the Argentines free, once yearly passes, to attend the theme park as a gesture of good will, but theme parks being fun and all we would hold onto ownership of it. And would call the obligatory house of horrors "Buenos Scaires" | ||
|
ElPeque.fogata
Uruguay462 Posts
On June 18 2011 07:40 SKC wrote: The problem he is talking about is when citizens from Country A are able to send their money to Country B while still living in County A. They will enjoy the benefits from a higher tax collection, while paying the small amount of taxes from Country B. So, yes, Country B citizens are not enjoying Country A's welfare program, but Country A citizens are enjoying both Country A welfare and Country B's low tax rates. Wheter this is what's happening between Argentina and Uruguay, I have no idea. Ok but then... Where and when was the money made? At that exact time you tax it fair and square acording to the law at that time and place. What remains is (or should be in a free country!) of free disposal. So you do whatever you want with it, right? You spend it. You set it on fire. You give it away. You put it in the bank(or invest in any way) to generate interest (and thus pay tax on such interests if aplicable). Or you may send it to another country and put it in a bank(or invest in any way) to generate interest (and pay tax if aplicable). Some country may not want you to do the last one. Some country might even make it a crime. But they can't (i mean, they shouldn't, but unfortunately...) force another country to tax them for them! The problem argentina has is that there is plenty of corruption. And tax evasion is rampant. And lots of the evaded taxes ends up in Uruguay. Then Argentina wants to know how much money each argentinian has in accounts in uruguay at any moment, so that when there is any increment they can go after such argentinian to make him justify such money increase. And if he can't, fine, jail, whatever. So... It's Argentinian government's fault if they are unable to detect and punish corruption and tax evasion in their own country. Bank accounts in Uruguay are secret to the owner. UNLESS ordered by a judge. That means that if there is reasonable evidence that a crime has been commited, a judge can request bank accounts to be investigated. And yes, they must have registered, confirmed names associated. They are not anonymous. That happens for example, in divorce trials. | ||
|
ElPeque.fogata
Uruguay462 Posts
On June 18 2011 08:02 IntoTheWow wrote: Ok, I PM'd ElPeque. If you are really interested to discuss this, you can PM me back. Stop derailing the thread, or open one about Argentinian politics. Yes, you are right. my last post was before reading this .Over and out | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
On June 18 2011 04:23 Drteeth wrote: That's good, loss of life is always regrettable, no matter what side you fight for. And with all our forces off fighting Americas war on terrorism I don't think we could spare the troops lol Thanks mate Anyone even thinking about a war is delusional. Malvinas are like the thunder mark in harry potter and war is Voldemort. You name him and hurts people. Just the idea of a war would face great opposition from the people. I think it's safe to tell that if a president spoke about going to war he would be taken out of office pretty quick. Besides that, our army is facing budget cuts continuously. The only good thing to come from that that coup d'état and that war is that a large part of our population learned a lesson. Sadly there are some that didn't. Did you ever set foot there? I just read your last post, you were def there :p How was it there, besides windy and cold. What's is it like? Rocky? anything beside some houses? | ||
|
Faria
155 Posts
Back on topic however, I'm British so I may be biased but, the Islands voted lopsidedly to remain British recently - no matter how much huff and fuss anyone makes this should allow them to remain British. Argentina invading or attempting to politically leverage them away is a breach of the islanders human rights, also I question the leadership of someone who is so blatantly dismissive of the islanders wishes and describes a country she is trying to negotiate with "arrogant and bordering on stupidity" Last time didn't go so well, these islands are British by legitimate claims before Argentina was even around, the islanders identify as British, Britain has a strong military presence in the area... I don't see the Falklands miraculously converting to Argentinian any time soon | ||
|
{ToT}Strafe
Thailand7026 Posts
I lived in Gibraltar for 2 years where the Spanish are still claiming it after 250 years, even though no one in Gibraltar likes Spaniards and no one wants to be governed by Spain. It is absolutely ridiculous and fueled by nationalistic pride. There is no logical argument Argentina can make to get the Falkland islands under their control and they will also never get it. I don't get how this got to the 11th page after Kwark wrote it down so clearly. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On June 18 2011 08:11 ElPeque.fogata wrote: Ok but then... Where and when was the money made? At that exact time you tax it fair and square acording to the law at that time and place. What remains is (or should be in a free country!) of free disposal. So you do whatever you want with it, right? You spend it. You set it on fire. You give it away. You put it in the bank(or invest in any way) to generate interest (and thus pay tax on such interests if aplicable). Or you may send it to another country and put it in a bank(or invest in any way) to generate interest (and pay tax if aplicable). Some country may not want you to do the last one. Some country might even make it a crime. But they can't (i mean, they shouldn't, but unfortunately...) force another country to tax them for them! The problem argentina has is that there is plenty of corruption. And tax evasion is rampant. And lots of the evaded taxes ends up in Uruguay. Then Argentina wants to know how much money each argentinian has in accounts in uruguay at any moment, so that when there is any increment they can go after such argentinian to make him justify such money increase. And if he can't, fine, jail, whatever. So... It's Argentinian government's fault if they are unable to detect and punish corruption and tax evasion in their own country. Bank accounts in Uruguay are secret to the owner. UNLESS ordered by a judge. That means that if there is reasonable evidence that a crime has been commited, a judge can request bank accounts to be investigated. And yes, they must have registered, confirmed names associated. They are not anonymous. That happens for example, in divorce trials. Just wanted to add that if I was Argentinian, not involved in any unlawful activity or money laundering, I would still keep money under my pillow untill I had enough to put it in in a foreigner bank, which would be Uruguay in this case. | ||
raviy
Australia207 Posts
On June 18 2011 06:27 Cain0 wrote: In all fairness, I think that the Falklands is better in our care. If you had a choice of who you want to be governed by, would you choose a rich democracy or a corrupt LEDC. So... you think every third world country should be governed by one of the rich countries then? You have a funny definition of "fairness". | ||
|
Drteeth
Great Britain415 Posts
On June 18 2011 08:21 IntoTheWow wrote: Anyone even thinking about a war is delusional. Malvinas are like the thunder mark in harry potter and war is Voldemort. You name him and hurts people. Just the idea of a war would face great opposition from the people. I think it's safe to tell that if a president spoke about going to war he would be taken out of office pretty quick. Besides that, our army is facing budget cuts continuously. The only good thing to come from that that coup d'état and that war is that a large part of our population learned a lesson. Sadly there are some that didn't. Did you ever set foot there? I just read your last post, you were def there :p How was it there, besides windy and cold. What's is it like? Rocky? anything beside some houses? Very very wet, very very windy, full of sheep, thousands of them. After the Sheffield was sunk I was moved ship to HMS Hermes, where I stayed for a further 2 years until 1984. Yes I set foot on the Islands themselves, picture somewhere bleak and green with lots of sheep. That about covers it. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6638 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/29/article-1131948-033C79BD000005DC-116_468x613.jpg) One of the most famous Falkland War pictures. | ||
|
DrN0
United Kingdom184 Posts
On June 18 2011 09:39 raviy wrote: So... you think every third world country should be governed by one of the rich countries then? You have a funny definition of "fairness". It would benefit the people, and isnt that the most important thing? | ||
|
nemo14
United States425 Posts
On June 18 2011 10:13 DrN0 wrote: It would benefit the people, and isnt that the most important thing? It would hurt the people who are citizens of the rich countries now. Trust me, the US at least has enough problems of its own without being involved in three wars simultaneously. | ||
| ||
