SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (43973)7/1/2010 9:23:32 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 71588
 
L'Oréal trial: heiress Bettencourt's tax shelters, gifts alienate belt-tightening French

The trial of a photographer charged with trying to defraud L'Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt started today, but was suspended to examine secretly made tapes in which Bettencourt discussed tax shelters with an adviser. Disaffection with elite privileges is rising in France.

The Christian Science Monitor
By Robert Marquand, Staff Writer / July 1, 2010
csmonitor.com

Paris

French celebrity scandals like the one now enveloping Liliane Bettencourt, heir of the L’Oréal fortune and the world’s third-richest woman – are typically arcane soap operas of power, family, politics, sex, and money. Even by the standards of France, though, the Bettencourt affair is maxing the genre.

Ms. Bettencourt is in a ferocious dispute with her daughter over her fortune and her relations with celebrity photographer Francois-Marie Banier, to whom she gave more than $1 billion in gifts. Mr. Banier went on trial today, accused by Bettencourt's daughter of trying to defraud her mother.

But Bettencourt now turns out to have been secretly taped by her butler for a year, information that caused the trial to be suspended indefinitely. Banier's lawyer argued that it would prevent a fair trial for his client, who could face up to three years in prison. The tapes included talks with a financial adviser to hide $97 million in undeclared Swiss accounts from taxes – prompting Bettencourt to say this week she will open her books.

In Paris, this narrative of glamour and intrigue is oxygenated by $28 billion in wealth and politically incestuous overtones, since a key Bettencourt manager is the wife of a French minister, Éric Woerth, who is now championing belt-tightening policies such as raising the retirement age. She’s now stepped down.

But one global aspect of the story is simple: an adviser and a billionaire discussing how to evade taxes that “ordinary” people have to pay. If true, analysts say, it highlights a crime that happens daily. And it plays into rising disaffection here with elite privileges.
Swiss accounts

In an Oct. 27, 2009 exchange, the adviser says, “We must arrange things with your account in Switzerland, we must not get caught before Christmas.” Three weeks later, he says of a $65 million account, “I am in the process of organizing its transfer to another country, whether Hong Kong, Singapore or Uruguay.... Like that you will be safe.”

Release of the tapes, in fact, took place on the same day the G20 in Toronto solemnly agreed to continue cracking down on overseas tax shelters. It comes as the US Congress is passing laws to report the identities and account information of Americans overseas.

In fact, the sheer scale of wealth in tax havens hasn’t fully sunk in, analysts say. Contrary to public perception, abuse may be worse, not better, than after the 2008 economic crisis – when busting tax shelters became a temporary cause célèbre.

Wealth protected offshore is now estimated at between $7 trillion and $15 trillion. The figure is based on “high net-worth” individuals – not corporations. That’s equivalent to a fifth or a quarter of world GDP, varying analysts say.

A 2005 figure by the Tax Justice Network, an international group of lawyers, scholars, and accountants found $11.5 trillion. “We think it is a low estimate,” says John Christensen, director of TJN. “Most of us would be surprised today if the figure is lower than 15 trillion. Wealth management firms believe the high-net wealth category has recovered [from 2008], often with spectacular gains.”

Jeffrey Owens, director of the Center for Tax Policy and Administration at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, says $7 trillion is “conservative … but even $7 trillion is big,” and says the higher estimates “could be possible.”

He argues that international resolve to crack down means “the days of tax havens are coming to an end.” Since 2008 Ireland has recouped $1.2 billion, largely from Channel Island shelters; Italy has taken in $6.8 billion; the UK some $600 million to $800 million.

Slow enforcement

Yet such figures and bold hopes pale in comparison with abuse. Some 534 bilateral agreements between states and shelters have been signed under OECD auspices since 2008. But enforcement is slow; information is by request and often late. Meanwhile, fortunes are folded into series of unregistered trusts, where accounts are opened on the third or fourth iteration of the trust, and become untraceable.

“The main problem is an incredible lack of transparency and information sharing,” Mr. Christensen offers, adding that “individuals and corporations are using the same mechanisms” to hide money as organized crime.

Mr. Owens agrees “trusts are becoming more sophisticated, but we are catching up. The problem has been around a long time.” The Swiss Parliament just agreed to give the IRS names of 4,400 American UBS bank account holders, a future model for coming clean.

But as havens like Switzerland, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein get tougher, new trusts are appearing in Singapore, Mauritius, Hong Kong, and Uruguay. Owens says new billionaires in China are looking to park money everywhere.

Nor, as he puts it, “is this at all a rich country problem.” Up to half the wealth in Latin America is not taxed and offshore according to a World Bank study; the African percentage of offshore wealth may be higher.

In France, Bettencourt is under investigation. It isn’t clear the L’Oréal heiress herself initiated criminal behavior.

“The Bettencourt story embodies the quintessential French paradox,” argues Karim Emile Bitar, editor of the Paris journal ENA. “The French are very resentful of inequalities and privileges. They refer fondly to the “Nuit du 4 août” [in 1789, that ended the monarchy and abolished privileges]. At the same time, every French Tom, Dick and Harry tries to maximize and protect his own privileges. He wants to eradicate abusive tax shelter deals but would vehemently protest if the fiscal authorities investigate his own books too closely.”



To: TimF who wrote (43973)7/10/2010 9:22:18 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Obama Plays Election-Year Politics on Immigration
By Michael Barone
July 5, 2010

"Years before the statue was built," Barack Obama began the peroration of his July 1 speech on immigration, Emma Lazarus "imagined what it could mean."

Actually, the French sculptor Bartholdi was at work on the Statue of Liberty before Lazarus published her famous "give me your tired" poem in 1883. (The statue was assembled in New York Harbor two years later and dedicated in 1886.)


The speech itself was similarly misleading. Obama, as he so often does, told us we must start "being honest about the problem and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together." But even as presenting a fair description of some immigration issues, Obama got in some false debating of his own.

He criticized the "ill conceived" Arizona law authorizing state and local law enforcement officers to ascertain the legal status of those stopped for other reasons, just as federal officials already can, and presented two serious arguments against it -- that it discourages cooperation with local police and subjects Hispanic-appearing Americans to questions others would not be asked.

But he also said it would put pressure on state and local budgets without stating how (isn't that Arizona's problem?) and seeks to "enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable." But federal law has required legal immigrants to carry proof of status for decades, and if that law is unenforceable, we might as well throw up our hands.

Obama went back in history to take shots at the Alien and Sedition Acts, repealed in 1802, and the Chinese Exclusion Act, repealed in 1943. He was apparently trying to depict America as unwelcoming to immigrants, even though the nation has welcomed more immigrants than any other.

But the most misleading thing about the speech was Obama's attempt to put the onus of non-action on the party currently in the minority in both the Senate and House.

"The majority of Democrats are ready to move forward," he said, though this is far from apparent. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to bring the issue up until the Senate acts, out of unwillingness to ask her Democrats to cast tough votes, though she was willing to do that a year ago on the cap-and-trade bill -- evidently, a higher priority for her -- and this year asked them to cast tough votes for the Senate-passed health care bill.

Obama summoned up memories of the bipartisan coalitions in the Senate for comprehensive immigration bills in 2006 and 2007, then added that "now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support."

But the same could be said of some Democratic senators. As Immigration Works, a pro-comprehensive immigration bill lobby, put it, "the president is still scolding and blaming Republicans rather than appealing to them in terms that might draw them into a serious effort to compromise on a bill."

The group might have added that as a senator, Obama himself voted for at least one amendment labeled as a "poison pill" by Edward Kennedy and other leaders of the bipartisan effort in 2007. Kennedy knew that you had to disappoint some liberal groups to hold a bipartisan coalition together. Obama, then running for president, didn't go along.

One result of the failure of the 2006 and 2007 bills has been a push for tougher enforcement at the border and workplace, beginning under George W. Bush and continuing now. Conservatives are wrong to scoff at Obama's statement that "we have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any time in our history." We do.

He might have added, but didn't, that an Arizona law requiring employers to use the federal E-Verify system has resulted in a statistically significant decline in the illegal immigrant population in that state, according to the Census Bureau. A similar federal measure might make a comprehensive bill more palatable to many Republicans and some Democrats, too.

More important, the administration undermined the "bipartisan framework" proposed by Sens. Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham by its on-again off-again approach and, as on stimulus and health care legislation, has provided little or no guidance in the drafting of inevitably complex legislation.

This slapdash approach fortifies the judgment that, for all the good passages in his speech, Obama is more interested in playing election-year politics than in solving the problem.

realclearpolitics.com