Monday, August 22, 2016

Tax Theft 15: Advanced Corporate Laundering

The Tax Theft series, beginning here in Part 1 and last updated here in Part 14, discusses the ways that the arms of western occupation governments following the American model use the concept of taxation to extract resources from subject peoples. We've previously examined various concepts of what is taxed, how it is taxed, and how taxes are permissibly avoided for some and levied on others, primarily through schemes which employ different "rates" and "deductions" to make modern taxation regimented thievery. The seeming "unfairness" of western tax codes, though deliberately byzantine, can actually be understood as blatant theft by even the simplest illiterate prole or most thoroughly-educated and regime-supporting university Eloi, when comparing publicly available deductibility rules. The foot soldiers of Black Lives Matter, Mara Salvatrucha, Soldiers of Odin, and the professorate at Sarah Lawrence can all share in seeing and understanding the firsthand unfairness of payroll deductions, even though they would also disagree about upon whom such unfairnesses should be directed. Black Lives Matter might want corporate CEOs to be unable to claim deductions on company cars, increasing the local tax pool to provide for more community funds to the local preacher; Mara Salvatrucha might rather retain its property taxes for use in private security instead of funding the police who might occasionally arrest one of them; Soldiers of Odin might prefer to be able to litigate against the "disproportionate impact" regular income taxes have on people who are of wholly European extract; and, Sarah Lawrence might want working mothers to be able to deduct breast pumps just like their bosses can deduct lunch at the Ritz. The tax slavery is profound in its impact, its seemingly confusing cruelty beloved only by those who understand the dark symphony of blood and death to which its framework is directed.

In a slightly different realm, we've also used the "State, Church, School, Charity" series (Part 1 through Part 6) to discuss a specific set of even cruder, more brazen ways in which taxes simply don't apply to certain special people with certain special connections. We've also discussed traditional money laundering--the largest, most open component of world occupation, facilitated through "politics" and "banks" on a world-historical scale that is not even ill-concealed, but rather a proud public part of elite history, too big to resist.

At a high enough level, we come to see that all aspects of the Terran economy, from the simplest fiat currency to the most elaborate details of a forthcoming climate enserfening, are unified: a fractal, like so many other components of reality, in which municipal sales taxes are gracelessly levied by backroom scum riding the puppet strings of hands no less evil than those fiddling a Bilderberg or a Microsoft.

It is in that spirit that we turn to the topic of advanced intra-corporate laundering. The structure of the publicly-traded corporation is one in which elites promise an economic share to savers in exchange for giving up control of their money. Part of this is done to create the illusion of caste permeability through the potential for a savvy rise to elitehood, and part of it is to ensure a secondary inflation-type market for periodically washing out a "middle class," thereby retaining the convenience and protection of an actual or perceived middle class between, shall we say, "the masses" and "the elites." Another important part of it is done to prevent savvy players from building their own independent wealth--by causing someone to invest $100K in the stock market, or $500K in a franchise, we prevent them from investing that same amount in their own restaurant and/or business, thereby preventing minor challenges to systematic control.

Minority voting interests in corporations are as worthless as winning second most electoral votes for the American presidency, further so when watered down by the "mutual fund" that is voted on by fund managers and not investors anyway, further so when fund managers are controlled by investment franchise policy via London or New York, further so when funds own funds which own other funds and voting is obscured through countless shell layers of ownership, and so forth. Nonetheless, some veneer of "actually trying to do well for stockholders" must remain.

And that is where we turn to my Jewish girlfriend. No, not "girlfriend," but "girlfriend," in the sense of someone in her early 60s who's really more of an acquaintance. She so happens to be a semi-professional model, and no, she's not good-looking in the sense that she's not physically attractive, and her absence of sex life is an unwanted recurring joke of hers. She's doesn't need the money, but she's a semi-professional model, and she does quite well for herself. Some might say she does well "at the expense" of the big corporations. Yeah, girl! Stick it to the man!

Here's how her job works: every few months, she gets a call from a friend of a friend about how they need someone for some ad. She often agrees, drives a state or two away to some studio, gets made-up for half an hour, gets in a pose for a few shots, and then goes home. A week or two later, she gets a check for eight thousand dollars, throws it at her broker, and life goes on exactly as before.

What kind of modeling does she do? Oh, everything, really. Sometimes she sits in a chair and gets her picture taken while an attractive black woman in a nurse's outfit pretends to be taking her blood pressure. Sometimes she gets her nails done and then holds a fork over a green screen where, later on, an image of a luxury meal will be added. Sometimes she grimaces in pain in semi-darkness as though having a heart attack, stroke, digestive upset, crucifixion, et cetera. Sometimes you can hardly see her, because she's just sitting in a clean car at a clean drive-thru restaurant facade, next to her husband (who also gets paid, and who is actually more conventionally attractive than she is, since he doesn't have her horrible "bowl" haircut). Sometimes she is a nameless background character in a movie, where she reportedly gets paid only "a few hundru-dollas, Idano!"

Now, some people would consider that a damn good job. And lots of people have these "jobs." They're in a list somewhere in some jerk's hard drive (many jerks, actually), and when it's time for a hand model, a foot model, a back pain model, a hundred movie extras, whatever, they get called. Some of these people--a very tiny number of these people--are those who've given up on the rest of life and thrown themselves into Hollywood or New York or wherever and spend all day trying to get actual roles while starving since they only get to be an extra in a studio audience a couple times a year. Most of these people are casual earners, with extensive contacts and SAG cards and who don't look anything at all like you think "models" look like, who don't really need the money and sort of do it as a "favor" to someone.

How does this scheme work? Well, imagine that Chase Bank has a board of directors, and that its executive staff is friendly with that board, and that some very smart people inside Chase Bank want to adjust the proportion of Chase Bank's profits that go to its friends and family--perhaps its political or religious allies, its co-ethnics, whatever you like--and that they want to do that without reporting fraudulent losses, hiding profits, or doing anything else underhanded. So what they do instead is fund a gigantic "advertising budget," and, out of that advertising budget, hire people belonging to certain groups to fulfill those roles. Chase Bank pays, over the course of the year, several complete smarmy assholes millions upon millions of dollars to design "ad campaigns," which campaigns consist of dumbass little slogans that don't mean anything and that come from a standardized corporate lexicon, and they pay some publishing company millions more to print posters and "layout" onscreen ads, and they pay even smarmier "consultants" ungodly millions upon millions more of dollars to supposedly study how "current and potential customers" will like these ads. They deduct this expense, but tax-wise, that's okay, because the new company receives it and reports it as profit, or deducts it again by paying it in salary to the assholes who work at that company, who then pay taxes on it.

Some of the money does go to actual models--people you could justifiably say, "Oh, they're attractive," or "Oh, they look reassuring to target consumers," or stuff like that. And some of it goes to people like my friend, who simply plump up the estate that's going to their already-wealthy children. The lion's share of the money is passed out to people who, superficially, are accomplishing positive tasks "for Chase" or "for Humana" or "for Chevrolet," but in actuality, the stockholders of the company are being massively screwed. Dividends take a huge hit, every year, as ridiculous, redundant expenses move from publicly traded corporations to a network of privately-held companies. And there's often a WASP CEO in the chair to get a "big salary" which is, yes, ridiculous, and earns rightful ire, but is a phenomenon nowhere near as ridiculous as the many and varied other ways that corporations launder money away from their outsider owners and toward the friends of their insider owners. Vibrio vulnificus grandis sub-strains like Steve Jobs or George Soros or Warren Buffett do ordinary stuff like killing kids and pillaging nations, but they also do sophisticated, high-end stuff, like tricking decamillionaires out of quarterly profits by padding the ad bill.

Colleges are in on this too, of course, like they always are. At the medical college, you've got a dozen pretty early-twenties nurses who'd love to be in an ad for the school. You've also got thirty chubby mulattoes and forty chubby black girls who look really sweet and down to earth and helpful, and better represent the demographic the medical college is supposedly targeting. And one of them, once a year, will win a contest to be in a brochure for the school. Meanwhile, the university spends $7 million of local student and taxpayer funds hiring some consulting firm to design their online "recruitment" ads, and the consulting firm pays eight grand to a rich old woman someone's cousin knows, and $450 to an out-of-state mulatto nurse, to pretend to be taking the old woman's blood pressure for the flash ad to run in the target market.

To states which follow the European model of a "value added tax," these sham transfers between corporations can serve an even more powerful purpose, depending on how the companies involved are structured, and how the services "paid for" are characterized. Under the American model, the I.R.S. and its equivalents "lose," too, as billions of dollars in corporate taxes are funneled to subordinate marketing corporations, which are in different tax jurisdictions (yes, plenty of them are in Delaware, or New Zealand, or Israel, et cetera), or which have other clever ways of appearing to earn less on paper, which ways are not available to, say, Target or Home Depot, but which look plausible once the $15 million advertising budget is filtered through the educational and training needs of the ad consultant's company. Advertising campaigns that could have and should have been thought up by two interns with a whiteboard and a spare weekend are given $10 million of research, and instead of being shot by giving a $50 gift card and free facial/pedicure to a customer off the street (who would look more believable and likable to actual potential customers anyway, besides saving enough money that it made the alternative ad campaign a major net loss) to serve as a model.

Like the rest of the world economy, this is all done "in plain sight." We see the ads out there, and we make jokes about that guy we heard about once who was a "foot model," and we laugh at how amazing it is that Superbowl ads cost what they do. Like the Fed providing paper currency, there's a tiny component of all of this that is logically justifiable--it's better to have strips of currency than carrying a lamb everywhere to buy stuff, and showing a woman looking happy inside a 4x4 truck might make female viewers more likely to be comfortable purchasing such a truck--but its ridiculousness becomes apparent with only minimal attention, like contemplating the IMF, an American income tax form, or a well-supplied ISIS convoy.

No comments:

Post a Comment