Since there are no top level comments putting this out for probably obvious reasons, here is a supportive comment for the article.<p>This is what people feel in their guts when they drive out on tattered roads and avoid going to the hospital even though they are sick, when they don't have a real increase in wages but are working longer hours. They have the sense that something isn't right, that there are two sets of rules and they got the shaft when it comes to that. Where police forces are cashstrapped and turn to civil forfeitures and ticket quotas while they see famous celebrities and politicians get off for things magnitudes more illegal than what they've done, whether it's smoking a joint or driving while black.<p>People already have a sense that things aren't fair. There's a reason why tax reform is polling so poorly. There's a reason why most of the country thinks taxes should be <i>higher</i> on the wealthy and corporations. They have a feeling that they are not seeing the rise of productivity in their own life, and they want justice.<p>My SO lives in SG. She is lower middle class (going to school, father works in a factory) and I asked her about income inequality, for there it's quite extreme. She says it's not that bad because people there have a reasonable standard of living; they can go to school, they can go to the doctor, they have access to affordable food, etc. Income inequality I think isn't a bad thing as long as the poorest among us have some basic level of livelihood. The problem is that in the US, that isn't true, and so, people clamor for justice.
I can't help but think of the GOP's tax "reform" that is a hot topic in the US right now. I say "reform" because there's absolutely no reform about it. It's a tax cut for billionaires bought and paid for by the GOP donor class. The paranoia of religious conservatives certainly elected the GOP but make no mistake: they don't give a shit about anyone but the donor class, often personified by the Koch brothers.<p>The carried interest tax credit is noticeably absent from the House plan.<p>The problem with any kind of true reform is that every exception and rule benefits someone and they'll lobby hard to defend it.<p>As for the corporate tax cut, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it if it came with enforcement against the offshoring (via transfer pricing) of profits in low tax regimes. But of course it doesn't.<p>Bringing this back to the Paradise Papers and other similar leaks, the problem I have is there's increasingly an ultra-rich class who benefitted greatly by the political stability in places like the developed world but have somehow convinced themselves that they shouldn't have to pay for it.<p>There was a time in my life when I was against the estate tax on philosophical grounds. That time is long gone. It really is a silver spoon tax. If anything it should be higher.<p>I really wish I understood why someone with $5b thought themselves above paying for schools, roads, hospitals and police. What really is the practical difference between having $5b or $10b?<p>Luckily the House plan is pretty much DOA in the Senate.
It's the wrong angle. One should not look at corporations as the moral saviours. As Supreme Court Judge Learned Hand once said:<p>"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing 851*851 sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant."[1]<p>Rather, it is the governments of the world we should be going at if we want this behaviour to change. But then again, it is always easier to find a fat scapegoat with a shiny appearance.<p>[1]<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6284821606579578514" rel="nofollow">https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=628482160657957...</a> (last paragraph)
It's funny how the people of Russia and the US are framed as being such great enemies when in reality many of the rulers of both countries have more common interests with each other than they do with the citizens of their own nations.
At this point in history I'd argue that nation states have never been weaker. The idea that 'Russia' is behind anything is somewhat erroneous: powerful mobsters/oligarchs who have been enriched by looting Russia and other nation states and float their money offshore are 'Russia' in this context. That money is laundered into the western world.
The concept of a capitalist 'empire' that knows no nation state is often discussed by excellent journalists such as Abby Martin. The people who make up this 'empire' - a mix of Saudis, Zionists, Asian oligarchs, old euro money and various other oligarchs and mobsters arguably run the world....
The leak shows substantial Russian cash going to US commerce secretary Wilbur Ross; Twitter and Facebook; and Arsenal and Everton. It also shows the usual tax avoidance by powerful people including Lord Ashcroft and Trudeau financier Stephen Bronfman.
Imagining people in meeting rooms at law firms discussing if they can go back to paper-only workflow...<p>Also, this I guess confirms the policy I heard from several heads of accounting depts in the 90's that they did not want their computers connected to the Internet..
The sad thing about this is the fatigue caused by the whole "well, of course they're cheating, they always do.". When the powerful/wealthy get caught the result seems to be just further apathy, rather than outrage with consequences. I wonder how long this can continue.
My parents always taught me to be honest and care about those around you. The older I got the more I realized that was mal-adaptive behavior in capitalistic society.<p>The real goal of capitalism is exploit or be exploited.
Comment from economist Tyler Cowen when the same group of journalists released the Panama papers:<p>Was it wrong to hack and leak the Panama Papers?<p>Let’s say a group of criminal defense lawyers kept a database of their confidential conversations with their clients. That would include clients charged with murder, robbery, DUI, drug abuse, and so on. In turn, a hacker would break into that database and post the information from those conversations on Wikileaks. Of course a lot of those conversations would appear to be incriminating because — let’s face it — most of the people who require defense attorneys on criminal charges are in fact guilty. When asked why the hack was committed, the hacker would say “Most of those people are guilty. I want to make sure they do not escape punishment.”<p>How many of us would approve of that behavior? Keep in mind the hacker is spreading the information not only to prosecutors but to the entire world, and outside of any process sanctioned by the rule of law. The hacker is not backed by the serving of any criminal charges or judge-served warrants.<p>Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status, as is the case with the Panama Papers. Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. Admittedly, very often the underlying tax laws should be changed, just as we should repeal the deduction for mortgage interest too. But in the meantime we are not justified in stealing information about those people, even if some of them are evil and powerful, as is indeed the case for homeowners too.<p>Once again, politics isn’t about policy, it is about which groups should rise and fall in relative status. And many people believe the wealthy should fall in status, and so they will entertain the morality of all crimes and threats against them. These revelations will of course lead to some subsequent cases of blackmail, against Chinese officials for one group.<p>I had tweeted “Are your views on privacy and #PanamaPapers consistent? Just asking…” and my goodness what a response, positive and negative. Most interesting of all, many people had never pondered the question before. Somehow “good things” such as “privacy” and “transparency” cannot stand in such conflict because all good things, like all bad things, must come together.<p>(...)<p><a href="http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/04/the-morality-of-panama-papers.html" rel="nofollow">http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/04/the...</a>
Are there any downloadable documents one could sift through? I'm interested in finding which individuals and politicians in my home country are implicated; this coming a at a time where our sitting president is guilty of fraud, racketeering, corruption, tax evasion (hasn't submitted a tax return since 1995).<p>Civil society and citizens are working behind the scenes to put pressure on the remaining good people in the system. This information could help. Thanks.
FYI HN:<p>Jeffery Carr wrote about Milner's ties to the FSB/KGB in 2011<p><a href="http://archive.li/2Lv1b#selection-549.14-549.39" rel="nofollow">http://archive.li/2Lv1b#selection-549.14-549.39</a><p>...and got fired from Forbes Magazine for writing about it...<p><a href="https://twitter.com/JamesFourM/status/915361529012289536" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/JamesFourM/status/915361529012289536</a><p>Theres certainly a major back story here.
A publication using "the 1%" in the context of "the global elite" means what exactly? A salary slightly north of $30k/yr lands you in the global elite club of the 1%.
Remember Panama papers? The outcome of those was..? Nothing? Or close to nothing? The same will happen to Paradise Papers.<p>There will be a "public outcry", there will be multiple opinion pieces, someone will create a nice website to show you cool infographics based on data.<p>A year from now everyone will forget about this ever happening. Which is a shame.
Appleby claims these documents were obtained during a security incident last year:<p><a href="https://www.applebyglobal.com/news/news-2017/media-coverage-of-the-offshore-sector.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://www.applebyglobal.com/news/news-2017/media-coverage-...</a>
Trump was one of the dirtiest candidates in history. How a rich oligarch billionaire got elected as a blue collar populist is one for the history books. These scandals will haunt him for the rest of his political career, as it's just so easy to dig up dirt on him. Almost every business deal in his past has been marred by some kind of controversy. The man is a walking scandal magnet.
On one end of the scale the benefit of transparency and on the other the inevitable subversion of these types of info dumps in the future, as a way to manipulate public opinion...
The Trump foundation sold 20% of US uranium assets and earned 145 million dollar on it. The Russians passed it on to the very peaceful Iranians, who are don't building nuclear warheads and ballistic missles. Trum ordered a fake damning dossier on Hillary Clinton from the Russians... etc... etc... etc
Hoarding money like this is highly immoral. Just give most of it away: <a href="https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich" rel="nofollow">https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-im...</a>
Its not clear what "secrets" they have revealed. Appleby seems to be an "advising company", so presumably no Trust data have been exposed. We might as well be looking at something we knew to be public all along. Is this really serious?
If a company doesn't use these tax-avoidance means, it becomes uncompetitive and gets eaten by those, that do. Moreover, there is a wealth of tax optimizing consultants with great knowledge of holes one gets access to once their revenue reaches $x00,000,000, often sanctioned by governing bodies. So if one makes it to the club, the easy way to stay there is to adopt the same disgusting practices like everybody else and shoot the ladder behind themselves. The rest of the world can live in favelas, nobody at the top really cares. I doubt we can't figure out a proper system to track every single transaction and make sure it's taxed properly, but there is no will or there are always some convoluted backdoors proper consulting companies install through lobbying and make available to "donors".
I always wonder about the timing of these releases... Are they really released as soon as possible after they're found, or just piecemeal when it's revealers find it most politically convenient?
So how bad is this exactly? I'm all for equality, but the world is built on the game known as capitalism, and this stuff exists because people optimise their playing strategy.<p>I know the starting conditions can be unfair, but we kinda need people at the top to make the whole thing work. If the world runs on money, then there will always be a poorer place that wants to attract the rich, and so havens are born. Let's not forget the rich spend a lot of money in their own country too, which is an essential part of a thriving economy.
Let's not act like tax avoidance is some Big Deal. Taxation is theft to begin with, so there's no reason to begrudge people who are protecting their assets.<p>The <i>real</i> question we should be applying our intellects to is "how do we fund the things that are currently funded by taxation, which are actually necessary / desirable, without using violence or the threat of violence?"
Honestly, nothing new. Does anyone still care? Action is being taken on an international level to combat avoidance, but it takes time. These types of offshore vehicles offer privacy and serve various specific purposes (e.g. tax transparent international investing). Yes, they can be used for illegal purposes (sometimes), but frankly that seems like the minority to me.<p>What worries me a bit though, is the fact that heaps of confidential information is just thrown online, without significant filtering. Even completely legal situations are published, but since the average joe has no understanding of tax law, he'll assume these people are doing illegal things. Attorney-Client privilege?