POL - How many DONT get caught.

[Flasch186]

More reason to regulate and NOT let the BIG businesses just run roughshod over everyone. If there is nothing in place to regulate these people they will stomp on those in their way to make more money. Everyday, more and more of these people are cuaght but there are many more who go uncaught and to move in a direction of less regulation gives them more and more freedom to take advantage of the little people and the US.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/01/news/midcaps/tax_indictment/index.htm?cnn=yes

Feds: Executive ducked $200M tax bill
Government says telecom entrepreneur Anderson used offshore companies in elaborate evasion scheme.
March 1, 2005: 8:47 AM EST

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A Washington business executive who earned nearly a half-billion dollars through off-shore ventures has been indicted in a massive $200 million income tax evasion scheme, federal law enforcement officials announced Monday.

Telecommunications entrepreneur Walter Anderson, 51, was arrested Saturday and was scheduled to appear before a federal magistrate judge Monday.

The 12-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury under seal last week charges that Anderson engaged in the elaborate tax evasion scheme, obstructed the IRS, and defrauded the government by failing to pay taxes owed to the federal government and the District of Columbia.

Anderson was involved in starting up long-distance telecommunications companies.

The indictment charges that between 1992 and 1996, Anderson transferred his ownership in three telecommunications companies -- Mid-Atlantic Telecom, Esprit Telecom and Telco Communications Group -- to another of his corporate entities established in the British Virgin Islands.

If convicted, he could face up to 80 years in prison.

[sovereignstar]

80 seems fair.

[gstelmack]

So they caught him and you're complaining? This I don't get. I mean, it's like saying we don't do enough to catch bank robbers by posting an article where one gets caught and saying "but many more go uncaught"...

[Flasch186]

So they caught him and you're complaining? This I don't get. I mean, it's like saying we don't do enough to catch bank robbers by posting an article where one gets caught and saying "but many more go uncaught"...


Because many of you say you want LESS regulation, AS IF, those in the top positions can regulate themselves and I constantly have to point out that youre wrong. stastically speaking for everyone caught there are a bunch more that go uncaught SO the point is that to have LESS regulation would leave our country in the hands of those with no scruples. Comprende? dont try to say this has a political slant so you dont have to address what Im specifically commenting on.

Those at the top need MORE regulation as they are scandalous.

[Buzzbee]

Because many of you say you want LESS regulation, AS IF, those in the top positions can regulate themselves and I constantly have to point out that youre wrong. stastically speaking for everyone caught there are a bunch more that go uncaught SO the point is that to have LESS regulation would leave our country in the hands of those with no scruples. Comprende? dont try to say this has a political slant so you dont have to address what Im specifically commenting on.

Those at the top need MORE regulation as they are scandalous.
I'm amazed at this on several levels.

"Because many of you say you want LESS regulation, AS IF, those in the top positions can regulate themselves and I constantly have to point out that youre wrong."

I wasn't aware that those in the top positions were supposed to regulate themselves. Also, I'm trying to figure out why only the people in the top positions are the ones breaking the law. Based on your comments, no one else does.

"stastically speaking for everyone caught there are a bunch more that go uncaught SO the point is that to have LESS regulation would leave our country in the hands of those with no scruples."

I'm trying to figure out the connection. If there are a bunch more that don't get caught, isn't our country *already* in the hands of those with no scruples? Seriously, do you really think that passing more laws will result in fewer criminals? Perhaps enforcing existing laws might work. If there were less regulation, would there be less reason to break the law?

"Those at the top need MORE regulation as they are scandalous."

Painting with quite a broad brush aren't you? And are the ones who aren't at the top who break the law not scadalous?

I'm sorry Flasch, but this is just simply preposterous. I'm not arguing against you, just saying that your argument is silly and way overdramatic.

[Flasch186]

I'm amazed at this on several levels.

"Because many of you say you want LESS regulation, AS IF, those in the top positions can regulate themselves and I constantly have to point out that youre wrong."

I wasn't aware that those in the top positions were supposed to regulate themselves. Also, I'm trying to figure out why only the people in the top positions are the ones breaking the law. Based on your comments, no one else does.

"stastically speaking for everyone caught there are a bunch more that go uncaught SO the point is that to have LESS regulation would leave our country in the hands of those with no scruples."

I'm trying to figure out the connection. If there are a bunch more that don't get caught, isn't our country *already* in the hands of those with no scruples? Seriously, do you really think that passing more laws will result in fewer criminals? Perhaps enforcing existing laws might work. If there were less regulation, would there be less reason to break the law?

"Those at the top need MORE regulation as they are scandalous."

Painting with quite a broad brush aren't you? And are the ones who aren't at the top who break the law not scadalous?

I'm sorry Flasch, but this is just simply preposterous. I'm not arguing against you, just saying that your argument is silly and way overdramatic.




Ill answer with one reminder which you can draw the lines from:


CONGRESS tried to pass laws to make it MORE difficult to investigate their behaviors, only the uproar stopped them. The people at the tops act without scruples and must be regulated or else the US will eventually go to hell in a handbasket and the gap will grow sooo much that you will have a 3rd world country living within a debt ridden country while the wealthiest create/abolish rules that WONT be enforced so that they can get away with even more. this is easy stuff.

[CraigSca]

Isn't Bill Gates giving away billions of dollars to charity? Son of a bitch!

Edit: Without knowing everything about the laws that Congress was trying to pass to make it more difficult to investigate these people (I'll take your word for it), I agree - it probably shouldn't be more difficult to find about these things.

However, does a week go by without you extolling the "hidden" dangers of capitalism?! The shrill "sky is falling" routine is really getting old. I agree - people in power sometimes fall all over themselves selling their soul, etc. However, this happens at all levels and regulating ourselves until we're at the point where we're a socialist republic isn't going to make ANYONE less likely to break a law that's already on the books.

[Buzzbee]

Ill answer with one reminder which you can draw the lines from:


CONGRESS tried to pass laws to make it MORE difficult to investigate their behaviors, only the uproar stopped them. The people at the tops act without scruples and must be regulated or else the US will eventually go to hell in a handbasket and the gap will grow sooo much that you will have a 3rd world country living within a debt ridden country while the wealthiest create/abolish rules that WONT be enforced so that they can get away with even more. this is easy stuff.
Seems like they are regulated. You said so yourself.

[Buzzbee]

Dola - Along the lines of what CraigSca said, Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This isn't a new concept.

However, if we were to believe what you present, the corruption of executives of large companies will directly result in the fall of the American Empire. I'm sorry, but it just isn't that simple, and to make such claims is assinine.

Is criminal activity by executives and by those in power a problem? Sure. Will it result in a rift between the "wealthy" and the "poor". Not by itself, in any way, shape or form.

Is increased regulation the solution to the problem? Perhaps, but so far you have presented absolutely NO evidence to show that simply passing more regulations will solve, or even improve the problem.

Has Sarbanes-Oxley resulted in less corruption by executives or companies? Who knows. Has it created a whole host of other issues? Absolutely.

You call for more regulation, but regulation for regulation's sake is not necessarily the answer. Could regulation be the answer? Yes, but it could also cause more problems than it resolves.

[sterlingice]

Seems like they are regulated. You said so yourself.
Never mind that this case took nearly 10 years to track down.

SI

[Flasch186]

Is criminal activity by executives and by those in power a problem? Sure. Will it result in a rift between the "wealthy" and the "poor". Not by itself, in any way, shape or form.




Ask those who were simply employees of Enron, or Global crossing. I think that they might agree that there is a rift between those at the top and the bottom. better yet just walk along the halls of the 15000 about to be laid off in the next merger. Ill bet they'd disagree. Or those at HP when they saw her severence pay. I think that you might find some evidence to the contrary.

[SunDancer]

Ask those who were simply employees of Enron, or Global crossing. I think that they might agree that there is a rift between those at the top and the bottom. better yet just walk along the halls of the 15000 about to be laid off in the next merger. Ill bet they'd disagree. Or those at HP when they saw her severence pay. I think that you might find some evidence to the contrary.

Aren't the top guys at both companies you listed on trial?

Also, this man has been using foreign accounts to hide his money. It's hard to get foreign countries to work with us to track it.

If anything, I think Bush and the current Congress is working harder to stop tax evections.

Also, if you read other articles, this man had a hateful passion for the government.

[Buzzbee]

Ask those who were simply employees of Enron, or Global crossing. I think that they might agree that there is a rift between those at the top and the bottom. better yet just walk along the halls of the 15000 about to be laid off in the next merger. Ill bet they'd disagree. Or those at HP when they saw her severence pay. I think that you might find some evidence to the contrary.
And is this "rift" solely attributable to criminal activity by executives? Yes, for Enron and Global Crossing it is, and we might as well toss in Anderson Consulting and MCI and a host of other companies. Yet, if I ask the employees of Dell, and Coca Cola and IBM and Chick-Fil-A and Wachovia and UPS and Norfolk Southern and Amazon.com and Anheuser Busch and 3M and International Paper and...well, you get the picture, are those employees going to tell me that the rift between those at the top and those at the bottom is because of criminal activity by those at the top? Or are they going to tell me that the rift is due to huge wage differences, or that those at the top can't relate to the everyday job that those at the bottom do, or because there is no faith in the direction those at the top have chosen to take the company?

Again, I agree with you that criminal activity by executives is not a good thing. I agree with you that preventing the next Enron would be good for those employees and for the country as a whole. However, I don't agree that corporate malfeasance will result in this country becoming "a 3rd world country living within a debt ridden country while the wealthiest create/abolish rules that WONT be enforced so that they can get away with even more." I also haven't seen one shred of evidence that you have presented to cause me to agree that more legislation is the answer. Isn't that what you are claiming? Or am I wrong?

I'm not saying that more legislation isn't the answer, but that you haven't convinced me that it is.

[gstelmack]

Never mind that this case took nearly 10 years to track down.
And it took 30 years to catch the BTK killer. Your point is ...?

In the legal system of this day and age, you need to get all your ducks in a row before going to trial (OJ anyone?). That means it may well take a few years.

[CraigSca]

Ask those who were simply employees of Enron, or Global crossing. I think that they might agree that there is a rift between those at the top and the bottom. better yet just walk along the halls of the 15000 about to be laid off in the next merger. Ill bet they'd disagree. Or those at HP when they saw her severence pay. I think that you might find some evidence to the contrary.
If you want to play THAT game, you can also talk to the families laid off BECAUSE of increased regulation. Increased regulation = more $$$ spent making sure you follow the new regulations. More bureaucracy, more paperwork, etc. = less R&D, less venture capital, etc.

I agree, this CEO severance crap is completely out of whack, but that has nothing to do with increased regulations.

[cuervo72]

I'm just lost as to why anyone makes such a concerted effort to continue a political crusade on a fake football messageboard...wouldn't you accomplish more picketing somewhere, or testifying in front of congress or something?

[Flasch186]

Aren't the top guys at both companies you listed on trial?

Also, this man has been using foreign accounts to hide his money. It's hard to get foreign countries to work with us to track it.

If anything, I think Bush and the current Congress is working harder to stop tax evections.

Also, if you read other articles, this man had a hateful passion for the government.

and we go circle again....

for each one caught there are likely (statistics) thousands that dont get caught and some argue for LESS regulation....thats my point.

[Flasch186]

I'm just lost as to why anyone makes such a concerted effort to continue a political crusade on a fake football messageboard...wouldn't you accomplish more picketing somewhere, or testifying in front of congress or something?

Well Cuervo, I find this fun and intelligent (comparatively to what I get around here) and picketing in the sun of Florida all day, perhaps while knowing that it wont accomplish much doesnt sound like much, well, fun.

Im not saying more legislation, IM SAYING that those aguing for less (meaning the people at the top dont need it) is a mistake.

[Buzzbee]

Im not saying more legislation, IM SAYING that those aguing for less (meaning the people at the top dont need it) is a mistake.
Those at the top need MORE regulation as they are scandalous.
So which is it? Which side of your mouth should we believe?


*Mr. Lefthand, meet Mr. Righthand. Mr. Righthand, meet Mr. Lefthand. You've obviously never been introduced before.*

[Flasch186]

Ok, semantics, lemme clean up my emotions - I apologize, sometimes they get in the way:


If they enforce the LAWS and regulations like they are supposed to than we could be ok HOWEVER, they dont. THUS more laws, that are enforced would be BETTER than less, which, those in my crosshairs argue for.

THERE. Right out of the CENTER of my mouth. (I love how instead of discussing the issues some people like discuss grammar, and spelling, and semantics - The more important thing is that MIDDLE AND LOW income AMERICA is being fleeced by those at the top and it is rampant and it seems that some are ok with this)

[SunDancer]

Ok, semantics, lemme clean up my emotions - I apologize, sometimes they get in the way:


If they enforce the LAWS and regulations like they are supposed to than we could be ok HOWEVER, they dont. THUS more laws, that are enforced would be BETTER than less, which, those in my crosshairs argue for.

THERE. Right out of the CENTER of my mouth. (I love how instead of discussing the issues some people like discuss grammar, and spelling, and semantics - The more important thing is that MIDDLE AND LOW income AMERICA is being fleeced by those at the top and it is rampant and it seems that some are ok with this)

When did anyone attack your grammar, spelling, semantics? They are rebuffing your claims, because your arguments are two-sided. By attacking others for not staying on subject, when they are, does it make your argument better?

So you want a socialist/communist society? Countries have that, and if thats what you want to live in, then go for it. The people at the top are in the minority that are "raping" (not sure if thats the right word, but I think you know what I mean) the companies, and they are usually caught and brought down.

Just curious,
What does the original article have to do with today's companies/regulations? The article talks about a man who set-up off-shore "ventures/funds" to hide his money and avoid paying the tax man. It deals directly with this man and not paying taxes (being dishonest in tax filings), not a company.

[Glengoyne]

Flasch,

Couple of things. First I don't think there are all that many folks, in this era of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco, that are really advocating less regulation. Well there was the head of the National Chamber of Commerce, but really no one in the administration, no one in the Senate, no one in the House is saying that we need less regulation for big business. As a principle some would believe that extensive regulation will stifle or cripple business, but few can argue where a laxity of accounting rules has gotten us.

Second thing. What is all of this "the middle and lower classes are being fleeced" crap? I mean sure there are a lot of folks making more money than they know what to do with, but why should we hold it against them? That type of thing, certainly wasn't out of most of our reach. I believe that to a large degree the people earning the most money, actually earned it. They achieved something. There is nothing wrong with that. Now sure, there are exceptions, but I think it is a colossal reach to say that the rich got that way by treading all over the poor.

I don't know what it is you are condoning, but it rings a little bit of Class Warfare.

[Flasch186]

Flasch,

Couple of things. First I don't think there are all that many folks, in this era of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco, that are really advocating less regulation. Well there was the head of the National Chamber of Commerce, but really no one in the administration, no one in the Senate, no one in the House is saying that we need less regulation for big business. As a principle some would believe that extensive regulation will stifle or cripple business, but few can argue where a laxity of accounting rules has gotten us.

Second thing. What is all of this "the middle and lower classes are being fleeced" crap? I mean sure there are a lot of folks making more money than they know what to do with, but why should we hold it against them? That type of thing, certainly wasn't out of most of our reach. I believe that to a large degree the people earning the most money, actually earned it. They achieved something. There is nothing wrong with that. Now sure, there are exceptions, but I think it is a colossal reach to say that the rich got that way by treading all over the poor.

I don't know what it is you are condoning, but it rings a little bit of Class Warfare.


i believe that class warfare does exist in the halls of the companies. its in the way their fabric is set up to take advantage which many times is abusive IMO. IMO, my argument is simple, I think that the people that are running the show are, for the most part, running roughshod over the "middle" and it cannot go on forever without serious ramifications.

AND I dont think that LESS regulation is an answer to this....all too often the CEO's etc. scam and stretch and loophole all day long and when the shit hits the fan they get a HUGE check and walk away. Rarely, does someone get caught and even more rare do they do serious time (in this case he might) but in the meantime these people at the top continue to grow the gap.

Am I being more clear now?

[Flasch186]

When did anyone attack your grammar, spelling, semantics? They are rebuffing your claims, because your arguments are two-sided. By attacking others for not staying on subject, when they are, does it make your argument better?

So you want a socialist/communist society? Countries have that, and if thats what you want to live in, then go for it. The people at the top are in the minority that are "raping" (not sure if thats the right word, but I think you know what I mean) the companies, and they are usually caught and brought down.

Just curious,
What does the original article have to do with today's companies/regulations? The article talks about a man who set-up off-shore "ventures/funds" to hide his money and avoid paying the tax man. It deals directly with this man and not paying taxes (being dishonest in tax filings), not a company.


apparently youre new to the political thread (joking) its an easy target because I type so fast i misspell and leave out paragraphs and sometimes that becomes the excuse to avoid or not debate.

I debate with you all for the fun, I believe in what I say, but to me it is good natured debate.

[Glengoyne]

...

Am I being more clear now?
Absolutely. I'm still wondering who exactly is actively advocating less regulation?

[Buzzbee]

Ok, semantics, lemme clean up my emotions - I apologize, sometimes they get in the way:


If they enforce the LAWS and regulations like they are supposed to than we could be ok HOWEVER, they dont. THUS more laws, that are enforced would be BETTER than less, which, those in my crosshairs argue for.

THERE. Right out of the CENTER of my mouth. (I love how instead of discussing the issues some people like discuss grammar, and spelling, and semantics - The more important thing is that MIDDLE AND LOW income AMERICA is being fleeced by those at the top and it is rampant and it seems that some are ok with this)
Part 1

Hard to discuss the issue when you keep changing what it is. Also, I haven't discussed grammar, spelling, or semantics. I merely pointed out inconsistencies in your own presentation. Furthermore, as I've stated before, to a large extent I agree with you, but think your over the top attitude defeats the merits of your argument.

Part 2

Allright, just a couple of quick points and then I'm going to rest my forehead.

"If they enforce the LAWS and regulations like they are supposed to than we could be ok HOWEVER, they dont. THUS more laws, that are enforced would be BETTER than less, which, those in my crosshairs argue for."

Ok, I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm not trying to "one-up" you. This is a serious question, and the crux of why I don't understand why you have such an extreme opinion on this.

IF they enforce the laws and regulations like they are supposed to then we could be ok. - I agree with that. Enforce what is on the books, and this applies to more than just corporations. It goes for gun laws, speeding and a host of other things. Enforce them or remove them.

However, they don't. - Agreed. Think I pretty much covered that above.

Here's the part of your argument I don't understand.

Thus more laws THAT ARE ENFORCED would be better than less, which those in my crosshairs argue for.

So, here's the quandary - they don't enforce existing laws, but we expect that if we pass new ones they will enforce them. Why? Isn't it possible that they simply won't enforce those laws either?

So, since they aren't enforcing the existing laws, passing new laws isn't *necessarily* the solution. Could it be? Perhaps. However, before we go on a legislation rampage, perhaps the focus should first be on enforcing what exists.

Part 3

Now, to help you out some. You say that those in your crosshairs believe that there should be less legislation regarding corporate malfeasance and such. However, you are getting caught up in trying to beat them over the head that we need more laws. You can't convince anyone we need more laws until you first convince them we don't need less. One way to accomplish this would be to prove to them that this is a serious issue and isn't just isolated to a handful of companies. Compare the losses caused by executive corruption to other forms of crime such as identity theft, bank robberies, insurance scams or other types of theft. If it is as big an issue as you say it is, then the numbers will bear out. Prove that thousands of situations exist for every one like you posted above - show the statistics that bear out this claim.



Alright. I'm done. I hope you view this as a constructive post, and not simply a knee jerk response. Understand that there is some merit to your argument, but that people get turned off and defensive as a result of your zealot-like approach.

[Flasch186]

Part 1

Hard to discuss the issue when you keep changing what it is. Also, I haven't discussed grammar, spelling, or semantics. I merely pointed out inconsistencies in your own presentation. Furthermore, as I've stated before, to a large extent I agree with you, but think your over the top attitude defeats the merits of your argument.

Part 2

Allright, just a couple of quick points and then I'm going to rest my forehead.

"If they enforce the LAWS and regulations like they are supposed to than we could be ok HOWEVER, they dont. THUS more laws, that are enforced would be BETTER than less, which, those in my crosshairs argue for."

Ok, I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm not trying to "one-up" you. This is a serious question, and the crux of why I don't understand why you have such an extreme opinion on this.

IF they enforce the laws and regulations like they are supposed to then we could be ok. - I agree with that. Enforce what is on the books, and this applies to more than just corporations. It goes for gun laws, speeding and a host of other things. Enforce them or remove them.

However, they don't. - Agreed. Think I pretty much covered that above.

Here's the part of your argument I don't understand.

Thus more laws THAT ARE ENFORCED would be better than less, which those in my crosshairs argue for.

So, here's the quandary - they don't enforce existing laws, but we expect that if we pass new ones they will enforce them. Why? Isn't it possible that they simply won't enforce those laws either?

So, since they aren't enforcing the existing laws, passing new laws isn't *necessarily* the solution. Could it be? Perhaps. However, before we go on a legislation rampage, perhaps the focus should first be on enforcing what exists.

Part 3

Now, to help you out some. You say that those in your crosshairs believe that there should be less legislation regarding corporate malfeasance and such. However, you are getting caught up in trying to beat them over the head that we need more laws. You can't convince anyone we need more laws until you first convince them we don't need less. One way to accomplish this would be to prove to them that this is a serious issue and isn't just isolated to a handful of companies. Compare the losses caused by executive corruption to other forms of crime such as identity theft, bank robberies, insurance scams or other types of theft. If it is as big an issue as you say it is, then the numbers will bear out. Prove that thousands of situations exist for every one like you posted above - show the statistics that bear out this claim.



Alright. I'm done. I hope you view this as a constructive post, and not simply a knee jerk response. Understand that there is some merit to your argument, but that people get turned off and defensive as a result of your zealot-like approach.


sincerely thanks...

i get emotional...sometimes its interpreted as zeal but its just emotion.

[ISiddiqui]

So, here's the quandary - they don't enforce existing laws, but we expect that if we pass new ones they will enforce them. Why? Isn't it possible that they simply won't enforce those laws either?

So, since they aren't enforcing the existing laws, passing new laws isn't *necessarily* the solution. Could it be? Perhaps. However, before we go on a legislation rampage, perhaps the focus should first be on enforcing what exists.
BAM! Great distillation and that is why the OP is incorrect. By passing more laws you won't get better enforcement. You need to get people enforcing the laws in the first place (if that is as great a problem as is being claimed - I think it is more a case of limited resources going after a crapload of people who try to cheat, and it ISN'T just rich people, in fact I'd say a majority aren't rich people).

[Flasch186]

BAM! Great distillation and that is why the OP is incorrect. By passing more laws you won't get better enforcement. You need to get people enforcing the laws in the first place (if that is as great a problem as is being claimed - I think it is more a case of limited resources going after a crapload of people who try to cheat, and it ISN'T just rich people, in fact I'd say a majority aren't rich people).

then again, sometimes you get people, like the immigration head who says that he "wont enforce the law." that kinda muddies the water when they outright thumb their nose at it....i dont know the fix, but it seems like those at the top just simply dont care about you or me....just their pocket.

[ISiddiqui]

then again, sometimes you get people, like the immigration head who says that he "wont enforce the law." that kinda muddies the water when they outright thumb their nose at it....i dont know the fix, but it seems like those at the top just simply dont care about you or me....just their pocket.
And people like you and me don't care about people at the top or bottom, just our pockets. So it all cancels each other out in the end.

[Flasch186]

And people like you and me don't care about people at the top or bottom, just our pockets. So it all cancels each other out in the end.

Not true. I care about everyone and sometimes thats my weakness but that allows me to sleep at night.