Tag Archives: regulation

No Stone Unturned

Posted on by
Reply

And they’ll regulate how to turn the stones, too [emphasis added].

The European Union could require Internet search engines, such as Alphabet Inc’s Google, to provide more transparency about advertising systems and conditions of use as part of new rules to regulate Web platforms.

Just gotta fill that regulatory vacuum.  Just gotta.  ‘Cos the people can’t be left to their own devices; they can’t handle not being told what to do and not do.

Here’s European Commission Vice President Andrus Ansip on the matter:

We have to deal with all those problems, but separately.

Notice that.  We have to deal, not the people should be left to deal.  They’d just be no good at it.  Besides, the more…targeted…the more regulations the Regulatory State gets to write.

A Presumption of Guilt

Posted on by
Reply

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget earlier this week accepted for final review a rule that would force banks to identify the owners of companies behind shadowy financial transactions, such as the firms revealed in the Panama Papers scandal or the ones used to buy real estate.  It would close a loophole that critics say allows criminal money into the US financial system.

Never mind that the vast majority of the Panama Papers’ shell companies are entirely legitimate.  Never mind that, in a free country, there has to be probable cause driven by a presumption of innocence to go looking for “criminal money,” not just a government man’s idle suspicion, or a dislike for a person or an entity, or a liking for fishing expeditions.

Of course Government must be above such petty concerns.

A spokesman for FinCEN [Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the originator of this rule] said the agency couldn’t provide specifics on the contents of any final rule, nor could he predict the timing for publishing a final rule.  He declined to comment further.

Of course not.  And of course.

This also represents another instance of this Democratic administration’s post-America attitude.

The International Monetary Fund weighed in as well, criticizing the US in July 2015 for failing to move quickly enough on identifying beneficial owners, saying the rule, as proposed, was too weak.

“There were no requirements for [financial institutions] to look beyond a customer to establish the identity of the beneficial owners in all cases,” the IMF said at the time.

Nor need there be, absent a court’s order based on probable cause, but hey—it’s an extranational institution that’s objecting.  That matters.

Sure.

Anti-Competitive G-20

Posted on by
Reply

And, yes, that includes an anti-competitive Democratic Party administration representing the US in this group of twenty.

G-20 finance officials called on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to report by July countries and jurisdictions that haven’t signed up to new international standards on tax transparency and information sharing.

“Defensive measures will be considered by G-20 members against non-cooperative jurisdictions,” the officials said in their statement after two days of meetings in Washington.

Wrong answer, guys.  Your threats just expose your own dishonesty.

If you really want to rein in the so-called tax havens, out-compete them in a free market: lower your own tax rates to competitive levels, and simplify your tax rules to eliminate your cynically Byzantine structures which serve only to benefit (or, just as bad, to appear to benefit) cronies and other government-favored groups.

The best defense is a good offense, but that offense must be directed at the right target.

“There is one thing which has not gone very global and that is taxation, which is still very much a local affair associated with national sovereignty,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said.

Why must taxation be standardized globalized?  What part of national sovereignty is unclear to you, Madam?

And further cynicism:

Revenue lost to tax havens is a sore point for the G-20….

It isn’t lost to you, guys; it isn’t yours to begin with, so it cannot be “lost” to you.  Again, compete: lower tax rates, and reduce the incentives to hide in “tax havens.”

And just to be clear (although, surely I’m preaching to the choir here:

haven 2. A place of refuge or rest; a sanctuary.

Thus, tax haven is a place of refuge from abuse by tax.

The Obama Legacy

Posted on by
Reply

Peabody Energy Corp on Wednesday filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from its creditors just weeks after warning that it could do so, the latest in a string of bankruptcies that have ricocheted through the US coal-mining industry.

The move by St Louis-based Peabody, the largest US coal mining company, follows on the heels of similar moves by Arch Coal Inc, Alpha Natural Resources, Inc, Patriot Coal Corp and Walter Energy, Inc.

Certainly, Peabody’s debt and competing energy sources have weighed, as has reduced steel production along with the Obama Recovery’s drag on our economy.  However, “environmental” regulations, designed by President Barack Obama to destroy the industry have contributed both to the reduction in steel production and to Peabody’s reduced ability to function.

The destruction of an industry.  Something only a Progressive could be proud of.  And something Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has said repeatedly that she will continue—in spades.

Leadership Regarding Tax Avoidance

Posted on by
Reply

Large multinationals operating in the European Union will have to publish details of profits and tax bills generated in countries considered to be “tax havens,” the bloc’s executive arm said on Tuesday as it toughened up proposals for fighting tax avoidance following the “Panama Papers” leak.

And

“By adopting this proposal, Europe is demonstrating its leadership in the fight against tax avoidance,” said Valdis Dombrovskis [European Commissioner for the Euro and Social Dialogue](!).

Never let a crisis go to waste, eh, guys?  Never pass up an excuse to increase Government intrusion and control.

Here’s a thought.  Work with me on this, it’s an unfamiliar concept for you Big Government aficionados.  How about showing leadership on tax avoidance by reducing the incentive to avoid paying taxes?  Lower your tax rates.

You haven’t demonstrated a need for all that money, anyway, and certainly you haven’t demonstrated a greater need for that money than the folks who’ve actually earned it: private citizens and their private enterprises.  All of you should be “tax havens.”