• Oil helps the economy.

    Yes, offshore protections should be removed, because it would remove our dependency on foreign oil. There is enough oil in the United States for the country to use all it wants, without having to depend on its enemies to supply oil. The problem is that we cannot access the oil because there are so many regulations. These protections should be removed so that we can strengthen the economy and national security.

  • Yes, offshore protections should be removed.

    Yes, I believe that offshore protections should be removed. The opportunity for individuals and corporations to benefit from offshore protection is an invitation for unfair inequality, lost revenue for governmental taxing agencies and potentially nefarious business dealings that could involve illegal drug trade, human smuggling or other dangerous and immoral transactions.

  • Yes, it will lead to more transparency.

    Yes, offshore protections should be removed. Banking offshore has allowed the wealthy to secure their assets without dealing with U.S. regulations and red tape. Unfortunately, this method allows ease of access for criminal money and fraud. In order to hold the wealthy more accountable and make the finance business more transparent and honest, offshore protections should be removed.

  • No, offshore protections should not be removed.

    Removing offshore protections could be detrimental to the economy at a time when it's already still unstable. Having offshore asset protections does help some crooked people get away with fraud, but it also helps good people to build their asset portfolios and protect their holdings against fraud and other issues. Just because some people abuse the system doesn't mean the system needs to be removed.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.