Making a Crypto Utopia in Puerto Rico
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Then just a few paragraphs later...
>“So, no. No, I don’t want to pay taxes,” Mr. Collins said. “This is the first time in human history anyone other than kings or governments or gods can create their own money.”
>“When Brock said, ‘We’re moving to Puerto Rico for the taxes and to create this new town,’ I said, ‘I’m in,’” Mr. Collins said. “Sight unseen.”
So-called "free banking" where banks issued their own currency and convertible debt instruments was quite popular before the 20th century. And there have been a few places issuing local pseudo-currency (Bristol Pound et al).
(There's also the story of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alves_dos_Reis , although he was really issuing someone else's money)
I mean, say what you will about these newly-found billionaires, but one thing is for sure: they aren't helping anyone except themselves. They get a bunch of money dumped into their lap from thin air (literally), and the first thing they do is go to a place that was just leveled by natural disaster and with a shattered economy, and buy up cheap land for their own personal playground.
I mean. Wow. Tone deaf doesn't begin to describe it.
...on the other hand, one can certainly be a little jealous of the ability to be so aimless :).
Also pay your fucking taxes you entitled douchebags.
"Puerto Rico offers an unparalleled tax incentive: no federal personal income taxes, no capital gains tax and favorable business taxes — all without having to renounce your American citizenship."
The "subtitle" in question is is 26 U.S.C. Subtitle A, i.e. the Income Taxes subtitle [2].
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/933
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A
Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax specialist. This is not advice of any kind. Do not interpret my Internet commentary as legal or tax advice.
Congress passed some tax laws to incentivize "investment" in Puerto Rico. They haven't been particularly effective.
The reason that they passed these tax laws is because they wanted to try something to boost the Puerto Rican economy that did not involve addressing the underlying issue for why Puerto Rico's economy has stagnated for decades. Repealing the Jones Act would fix most of these problems, but the Jones Act is politically popular with major Democratic supporters, and Republicans (as a party) tend not to care about Puerto Rico, so the initiative to repeal it never went anywhere.
In the end, there's no amount of tax incentivizing that can make up for the costs that the Jones Act imposes on the Puerto Rican economy, which is why the tax laws didn't halt the brain drain. Of course, the failure to provide effective disaster relief in Puerto Rico this past year hasn't exactly helped either.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/weather/hurricane/article177...
While that's true, that's not the reason that Democrats specifically are unwilling to touch the Jones Act. Florida is a pretty purple state, and Democratic senators from other states don't care as much about the shipping industry in Florida. Furthermore, Marco Rubio (a Republican) represents Florida, but he was actually a strong advocate of waiving (though not repealing) the Jones Act after Hurricane Maria.
The reason Democrats in particular are unwilling to touch the Jones Act is because the AFL-CIO lobbies for it very, very heavily. The AFL-CIO lobbies for the Jones Act in general because it boosts the demand for jobs in unions that they control. In addition, the AFL-CIO also has a "complicated" relationship with Puerto Rico, which is why they so specifically opposed temporarily waiving the Jones Act for Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria hit, even though they've begrudgingly accepted temporary waivers for US cities hit by other recent hurricanes (like Harvey in Houston).
Plenty of Democrats, especislly since Bill Clinton’s Presidency, have been on the side of corporations against the AFL-CIO and organized labor generally on lots of issues of central importance.
First of all, the AFL-CIO is a corporation, so this isn't really a meaningful dichotomy.
But moreover, I'm not sure why this comment is at all relevant? Sure, sometimes Democrats might not always vote the way the AFL-CIO wants, but that doesn't change the fact that the AFL-CIO are major influencers of the Democratic party platform, and it's not at all debatable that the AFL-CIO has lobbied incredibly heavily in favor of the Jones Act.
The Jones Act creates artificial scarcity in the shipping industry, boosting the demand for jobs in ships that are unionized by Democratic-supporting groups: namely the AFL-CIO.
The AFL-CIO has lobbied heavily not just against repealing it entirely, but even against temporarily waiving it for relief in Puerto Rico, the way it has been temporarily waived for relief in basically every recent natural disaster (including in Houston after Harvey).