5 ms·

The fund doesn't benefit from the US social structure. The fund is just a legal fence around a bunch of assets. The investors in the fund are obliged to pay ta

by ddeck 9y ago

The fund doesn't benefit from the US social structure. The fund is just a legal fence around a bunch of assets. The investors in the fund are obliged to pay taxes on their income/gains in their relevant taxation jurisdiction, which will be the US for US investors and elsewhere for non-US investors.

adamnemecek 9y ago
It's benefiting from the US structure indirectly. Investors into the fund are definitely benefiting from the US social structure and hence the fund is also benefiting. I can also imagine that the fund has some US legal protection (don't quote me on that). > The investors in the fund are obliged to pay taxes on their income/gains in their relevant taxation jurisdiction, which will be the US for US investors and elsewhere for non-US investors. So why is the fund getting a pass?
- icebraining 9y ago
  Investors into the fund are definitely benefiting from the US social structure and hence the fund is also benefiting. Fine. When will you start paying taxes to Greece and Italy for essentially inventing the core civilizational structure the West is based on?
  - adamnemecek 9y ago
    > paying taxes to Greece and Italy Haha, the EU is paying them more than enough already.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- cgmg 9y ago
  "It's benefiting from the US structure indirectly. Investors into the fund are definitely benefiting from the US social structure and hence the fund is also benefiting." So, have you been paying your taxes to Germany, Canada, the UK, and the rest of the world?
  - adamnemecek 9y ago
    No, because the fund has a choice of being established in US or Cayman Islands. Not, Germany, Canada, UK.
    - cgmg 9y ago
      I'm talking about you. You said the fund should pay taxes to the US because it "indirectly benefits from the US social structure". By that logic, you should be paying taxes to all the countries whose "social structure" you indirectly benefit from.
    - ddeck 9y ago
      >the fund has a choice of being established in US or Cayman Islands. Not, Germany, Canada, UK. Why? As far as I can see, two people who are neither US citizens nor US residents are setting up a Cayman fund. What exactly does this have to do with the US?
      - adamnemecek 9y ago
        OK my mistake, I didn't realize they were from the UK. Replace US with UK and my comments still apply.
pedrocr 9y ago
>The fund doesn't benefit from the US social structure. The fund is just a legal fence around a bunch of assets. The recent SEC decision on Ethereum ICO's made it clear at least the legal part of the social structure still applies. The normal tax setup isn't really setup to do this though as the same also applies to all the other countries the fund would want to sell to. A tax on the fund transactions with citizens of each country would probably be a better way to pay for the SEC and other regulatory and legal services in each country.
- ddeck 9y ago
  >A tax on the fund transactions with citizens of each country would probably be a better way to pay for the SEC and other regulatory and legal services in each country This is effectively how things already work. Sale of investment products is generally highly regulated in most countries by a domestic regulator and most of those also implement transaction taxes[1]. In effect, the taxation to fund regulation is done at the destination, not the source, which makes sense given that the regulator is typically protecting the investors located in the same jurisdiction. In the US for example (since this discussion seems to be about the US despite the fact that fund being discussed appears to have nothing to do with the US): Currently, the US imposes a $0.0042 round-trip transaction tax on security futures transactions and $21.80 per million dollars for securities transactions.[63] The tax, known as Section 31 fee, is used to support the operation costs of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax

by ddeck 9y ago

adamnemecek 9y ago

It's benefiting from the US structure indirectly. Investors into the fund are definitely benefiting from the US social structure and hence the fund is also benefiting. I can also imagine that the fund has some US legal protection (don't quote me on that). > The investors in the fund are obliged to pay taxes on their income/gains in their relevant taxation jurisdiction, which will be the US for US investors and elsewhere for non-US investors. So why is the fund getting a pass?

icebraining 9y ago
Investors into the fund are definitely benefiting from the US social structure and hence the fund is also benefiting. Fine. When will you start paying taxes to Greece and Italy for essentially inventing the core civilizational structure the West is based on?
- adamnemecek 9y ago
  > paying taxes to Greece and Italy Haha, the EU is paying them more than enough already.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
cgmg 9y ago
"It's benefiting from the US structure indirectly. Investors into the fund are definitely benefiting from the US social structure and hence the fund is also benefiting." So, have you been paying your taxes to Germany, Canada, the UK, and the rest of the world?
- adamnemecek 9y ago
  No, because the fund has a choice of being established in US or Cayman Islands. Not, Germany, Canada, UK.
  - cgmg 9y ago
    I'm talking about you. You said the fund should pay taxes to the US because it "indirectly benefits from the US social structure". By that logic, you should be paying taxes to all the countries whose "social structure" you indirectly benefit from.
  - ddeck 9y ago
    >the fund has a choice of being established in US or Cayman Islands. Not, Germany, Canada, UK. Why? As far as I can see, two people who are neither US citizens nor US residents are setting up a Cayman fund. What exactly does this have to do with the US?
    - adamnemecek 9y ago
      OK my mistake, I didn't realize they were from the UK. Replace US with UK and my comments still apply.

pedrocr 9y ago

>The fund doesn't benefit from the US social structure. The fund is just a legal fence around a bunch of assets. The recent SEC decision on Ethereum ICO's made it clear at least the legal part of the social structure still applies. The normal tax setup isn't really setup to do this though as the same also applies to all the other countries the fund would want to sell to. A tax on the fund transactions with citizens of each country would probably be a better way to pay for the SEC and other regulatory and legal services in each country.

ddeck 9y ago
>A tax on the fund transactions with citizens of each country would probably be a better way to pay for the SEC and other regulatory and legal services in each country This is effectively how things already work. Sale of investment products is generally highly regulated in most countries by a domestic regulator and most of those also implement transaction taxes[1]. In effect, the taxation to fund regulation is done at the destination, not the source, which makes sense given that the regulator is typically protecting the investors located in the same jurisdiction. In the US for example (since this discussion seems to be about the US despite the fact that fund being discussed appears to have nothing to do with the US): Currently, the US imposes a $0.0042 round-trip transaction tax on security futures transactions and $21.80 per million dollars for securities transactions.[63] The tax, known as Section 31 fee, is used to support the operation costs of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax