(Edit: Mr. Johnston graciously replies in the comments section. It seems the invasion was a bit of a modest proposal that I failed to pick up on. While there are things to disagree with in the rest of the article, I think it does a good job of showing the need for a much simpler tax code.)
That’s the only explanation for this column by Pulitzer prize winning journalist David Cay Johnston in Mother Jones.In it, Johnston advocates invading countries who’s laws we don’t like. Not laws like treating women like property, stoning homosexuals, or systematic oppression of minorities. No, laws like having low taxes and vibrant banking systems.
In 1983 just 10 percent of America’s corporate profits were funneled through places that charge little or no corporate income tax; today more than 25 percent of profits go through tax havens. The Obama administration could tell the Caymans—now fifth in the world in bank deposits—to repeal its bank secrecy laws or be invaded; since the island nation’s total armed forces consists of about 300 police officers, it shouldn’t be hard for technicians and auditors, accompanied by a few Marines, to fly in and seize all the records. Bermuda, which relies on the Royal Navy for its military, could be next, and so on. Long before we get to Switzerland and Luxembourg, their governments should have gotten the message.
The rest of the article is also filled with some bad ideas, but this is the one that stands out. Many on the right have been called blood thirsty and warmongers for advocating less against actual military enemies of the US.
(H/T Radley Balko at Reason)
You really need to read Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and read this in context, with a little bit of a grin…
But Iam serious about how Congress created two income tax systems, separate and unequal. One is for wage and salary earners (who are rigorously taxed) while the other for business owners (including me), landlords (I have been one) and investors, who have little or no verification, no withholding and rules that assist those who want to cheat, including criminal tax evasion.
Mr. Johnston,
I freely admit that it is possible that I read that wrong, and your explanation would make a little bit more sense. I guess I was just used to Modest Proposals starting out with the customary “If I may make a modest proposal…”
As for the thrust of the article, current events with Charles Rangel and Timmothy Geithner would seem to make obvious the need for a simpler tax code. There are of course many alternatives such as the flat tax, fair tax, or other means that would help everyone across the board with reduced complications, however this complicated system of tax credits, rebates, and subsidies would then not be able to be used by politicians to grant favors to their lobbiests and friends, while also using corporate taxes to hide the costs of their new spending plans. I’m just not sure I would put the blame on the Grand Caymens and other such countries for offering such popular services.
Absolutely right — the complexity in the tax code is there mostly to benefit people of means and their entities to avoid, delay, defer and otherwise pay less than wage earners. I have written on that many times and lectured all across the country on that, which is also a theme in Perfectly Legal and, somewhat, in Free Lunch.