Because the US, after bullying countries like Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Luxembourg to clean house, is now left as the single biggest western tax haven in the world.
Only for non-residents though. So you can't have a green card, or US citizenship, and you have to stay well clear of the Substantial Presence Test (https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/subs...).
And once a lot of finance is flowing through a country, I'd expect some sort of interplay with political influence to happen.
I do not know whether this system exists anywhere, but it is possible.
In general this is true but if you are one of the few tax havens in the world then you have so much money going through that a very small percentage tax adds up to enough money to keep your citizens quiet. This only works locally though. Globally, other societies are getting screwed.
Hate it when you are the 6/7 (actually much more) of mankind on the other side of the gun.
Sorry, but i hate these shrug "but it has some benefits" reactions. Without a perceived moral high ground, your military is useless, ask putin, and your displayed lacking critical stance is the ever green substrate for that.
Sorry again. Whenever i see such pro/indiffernt US foreign policy posts, i see the next war coming and i feel urged to reply.
With that said, I think most everyone agrees that a chain of command exists, with its apex in duly constituted civilian authority, that authority substantially if not overwhelmingly mandated with the consent of the public.
We do this. We fall for the propaganda, we spend more time concerned with joining a small elite than throwing their worthless asses out in the cold. We vote for these people or fail to vote for others. We fail to speak up a little bit each and shift the entire burden on the few magnificent bastards who do take on city hall.
Anyone doing any “typical” amount of anything (including your humble commenter who is at or near the front of the queue on not doing enough relative to privilege) is at best not helping: the status quo is extremely bad and it exists because we lack either the clarity or courage to so much as boycott a big corporation, let alone an entrenched special interest, soft money capture ratchet.
The armed forces of the United States, with some exceptions notable enough to be scandals, are carrying out our collective agenda.
Let’s at least be honest about where the buck stops on this. I know I’ve failed in my civic and human duty to object effectively enough, often enough, and fearlessly enough. The least I can do is acknowledge that I among many stood by and watched while it all went to hell.
I'd need some very good evidence before believing this for any country, not only the US. The people's interests haven't been in the equation for quite a while now. This phrase only works if you replace "our collective agenda" with "the agendas from the rich and powerful".
The typical counter-argument is that we indirectly choose our representatives, but that's a naive take at best. The only people with real power in a capitalist world are the ones with... a lot of capital.
Even if we are being moralistic and transparent; for some countries, being tax-free is their only competitive advantage. Instead we are now to assume that tax-free jurisdictions are evil and should be abolished. Might as well just restart colonialism; at least colonial countries got to be part of the big trade.
If your country's only advantage is to steal tax money from other countries, or provide cheap energy by burning coal, or cheap labor by using slaves, then it's perfectly fine to isolate that country to force it to stop. We obviously shouldn't just accept that everyone is worse off just so that a country with no other advantage can thrive.
Your assumption seems to be that countries have a right to someone's productivity even after they emigrate elsewhere.
Care to actually defend this point?