Slashdot Mirror


Panama Papers: Data Leak Exposes Massive Official Corruption (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The hidden wealth of some of the world's most prominent leaders, politicians and celebrities has been revealed by an unprecedented leak of millions of documents that show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes. The Guardian, working with global partners, will set out details from the first tranche of what are being called "the Panama Papers". Journalists from more than 80 countries have been reviewing 11.5m files leaked from the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world's fourth biggest offshore law firm.

Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens. Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Vladimir Putin, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt's former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davio Gunnlaugsson. The leak is one of the biggest ever - larger than the US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks in 2010, and the secret intelligence documents given to journalists by Edward Snowden in 2013.
More here. Search the Offshore Leaks Database here.

364 comments

  1. I may sound cynic by polar+red · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But I am not surprised. Time to do some 1789?

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re:I may sound cynic by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      The only surprise is that some people are surprised.

    2. Re: I may sound cynic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The politicians made tax shelters, they're not about to shoot themselves in the foot regardless of what comes to the press

  2. Iceland by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's Sigmundur Davið - that's an eth, not an o. And yes, people were already furious with the way he's been running our government, now it's boiling over. Hopefully we'll be getting rid of him soon enough....

    --
    If I ever become wealthy and mad, I'll leave Companion Cubes on desert islands for shipwreck survivors.
    1. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr guillotine is your friend.

    2. Re:Iceland by whipslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah.. Unicode issue for stories. It'll be fixed soon-ish

    3. Re:Iceland by r1348 · · Score: 1

      Vikings behead by axe only!

    4. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So Slashdot might finally support a 1980s text standard? Hurray?!!

    5. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Madame Guillotine.

    6. Re:Iceland by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Like holographic storage soonish?

      Or fusion power soonish?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Eagle, Red Eagle, Read Eagle! Although I'm not sure these people reserve the change to feast in Valhalla. They have feasted enough here.

    8. Re:Iceland by Rei · · Score: 2

      Lol, you really think that this guy qualifies as a viking? A guy who once left in the middle of a parliamentary session while answering questions because he had a craving for chocolate cake?

      --
      If I ever become wealthy and mad, I'll leave Companion Cubes on desert islands for shipwreck survivors.
    9. Re:Iceland by Rei · · Score: 1

      That said, if we do need an executioner, I think we've got the guy for the job...

      --
      If I ever become wealthy and mad, I'll leave Companion Cubes on desert islands for shipwreck survivors.
    10. Re:Iceland by Sique · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's Mr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin. He recommended the Scottish Maiden as a human way of executing people during the French Revolution.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    11. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Madame la Guillotine as in Lady Liberty or Typhoid Mary. When people talk about being sent to the guillotine they don't mean the chap who invented it.

    12. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... before bashing your prime minister, you should give him credit for 2 relevant achievements:

      1) He kept Iceland out of the EU, protecting its national sovereignty. Believe me, the vast majority of the citizens of EU member-nations envy you for this

      2) He respected the will of the Icelandic people - as expressed in two referenda - to let state-owned banks to default on their foreign debts, instead of bowing to the IMF and the foreign investors (by the way, this means that according to today's leak, he probably acted against his own interests!)

      Now look at Greece instead: their coward prime minister bowed to the Troika instead of defaulting and exiting the eurozone, although in a referendum the Greek people had rejected the agreement with foreign creditors as well. He did all the neoliberal "reforms" requested by the Troika itself (slashing the budget, erasing workers' rights, etc...), and now his country is third world. That's exactly how Iceland would be today if your prime minister behaved the same way. And ask yourself if today's leak isn't maybe some sort of "retribution" for that...

    13. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Red Eagle" - you mean Blood Eagle?? Gah, that's a horrible way to inflict death on anyone. Still better than flaying, I suppose.

    14. Re:Iceland by Rei · · Score: 1

      A percentage of Icelanders, yes. Is there a point you're trying to make? Are you on the lookout for an Icelandic boyfriend or something?

      --
      If I ever become wealthy and mad, I'll leave Companion Cubes on desert islands for shipwreck survivors.
    15. Re:Iceland by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh thank you so much! Because I was so looking forward to being lectured about how AWESOME Framsóknarflokkurinn is from someone who's never lied here! Who gives a rat's arse that they've repeatedly stolen from the nation to enrich themselves, smuggled guns into the country, shot us down the rankings in terms of press freedom by numerous actions against the media, gutted government services to pay for policies to benefit the wealthy, and on and on. No, no, we're supposed to be thankful that they broke their campaign promise where they said that we'd get a vote on EU membership - instead breaking the law by bypassing parliament (who had the actual legal right to withdraw our membership) to withdraw it without giving the nation a vote - even though a popular vote would most likely have rejected EU membership anyway.

      Yes, I'm supposed to be SO BLOODY THRILLED with them. Thank you very much, Person-Who-Does-Not-Live-Here!

      As for your "#2", SIMMI HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. Quite to the contrary, Framsóknarflokkurinn and Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn were organizing the agreement with the British that ultimately got voted down. It was our president, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who sent it to referrendum. But don't get too thrilled about King Ólafur, he's a penultimate politician; he was the best friend of the banksters when the economy was doing well, called them role models... but he sure knows how to sail a turning tide. Thankfully, he's going to be gone soon, too.

      And FYI, we DID bow down to the IMF. Seriously, read what the IMF wrote about us. We took on an IMF package and fully implemented it. We're their new poster child. Contrary to popular belief, our government has always paid its debts. What we have not paid is non-government debts - which the EFTA court ruled were not owed. The British and Dutch actions in Icesave were ridiculous; it explicitly spelled out in the Icesave accounts, one link from the front page, that they were backed by a private fund not the government as the primary insurance, and that the secondary insurance was (as is proper under treaty) the British and Dutch governments, respectivevly. Their attempt to try to pass on their loan obligations to Iceland was just shameful (although certainly in line with their long history of exploiting us - hey Brits, ever plan to pay us back for all the cod you stole???).

      Also FYI, Greece had government backed banks. And the issue was over whether or not to reject government owned debt, which nobody at all on any side disputed was government-owned. And they, unlike us, had a severe income problem as well; we had balanced budgets (before our economy fell off a cliff, at least), and a low amount of government debt (again, before we heavily indebted ourselves over the crisis trying to get the banks back on their feet - yes, we did pump large amounts of money into the banking industry, even though we let some go into receivership)

      But no, please please, tell me more about my country and how we're supposed to love our corrupt gun-smuggling perpetually-lying media-crushing government!

      --
      If I ever become wealthy and mad, I'll leave Companion Cubes on desert islands for shipwreck survivors.
    16. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Icelanders are made of wood? How? They barely have any trees!!
      I'm pretty sure that any of the country's many remarkable strongmen will be quite amused by you insulting them, Anonymous Chihuahua

    17. Re:Iceland by KGIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > A guy who once left [grapevine.is] in the middle of a parliamentary session while answering questions because he had a craving for chocolate cake?

      I hate to say this but it has to be said. I didn't click your link because I trust you'd not lie to me.

      I'm sorry but if someone has the balls and temerity to skip out on a parliamentary session while THEY are the one being questioned just because they had a hankering for some cake then that is kind of awesome. I know... I know it's bad for governance but the sheer balls of that? The temerity? The virtual slap that was done? The loss of face for the authorities?

      That is AWESOME!

      It's retarded - but still awesome. That would be fantastic. Other countries get shoes thrown, full on fist fights, desks and chairs broken, and people going to the hospital. The US doesn't really get anything like that at the major league level and our individual States aren't usually that exciting but they sometimes have some amusing antics.

      No, I'm not sorry to say it. That's really kind of awesome in its own little fashion.

      Anyhow... Regarding your follow-up post about an executioner. I'm familiar with Iceland, a little bit, and I also know that they've an absolutely outstandingly large percent of giants there. How many times has someone from Iceland won the World's Strongman (or is it Toughest Man) Competitions? They do things like move 500 pound kegs, carry 1500 pounds on their shoulders, move giant rocks and anvils, and lug buses and cars around. They lift hundreds and hundreds of pounds and blow out BONES from the weight and sheer torque applied to them by the muscles. In other words, sometimes their muscle fibers, ligaments, and tendons are stronger than their bones and are so strong that they break their bones!

      And little tiny Iceland, with a total population of 185 people, some seals, and an angry volcano god has a disproportionate number of winners or top-level competitors. Pretty much every year, they've got at least one person in the championship. They even have SEVERAL schools/training facilities just for this.

      I suspect there's a secret breeding program going on up there and they're feeding 'em some strange stuff and tweaking their genes. Some of those guys are huge and absurdly strong.

      I can't pronounce or spell any of their names. I can't even recollect where the two (that I know of) training facilities are. I'm gonna guess that if Iceland needs an executioner, they're well and truly able to grow their own. :-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re:Iceland by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's amazing what revisionist history has done for the French Revolution. (No, not accusing you - you were the one citing actual history.)

      I believe you're from France? I don't know if you're aware of this but a lot of people who are not from France have romanticized the French Revolution and think that it had the desired income. They'll outright disbelieve you when you point out that the revolutionaries all ended up dead (for the most part). They'll refuse to look at the evidence to see that it was more than just a few royal people who died. They'll forget about the violent oppression and the wild pendulum swing (where even the wealthy mimicked the poor in things like manner of dress and social behaviors LEST THEY DIE). They'll ignore that people died for, pretty much, not being happy enough - or faking it. They don't know about the zany calendar changes, the whole swing away from allowing religion, and that it lasted, largely, up until Napoleon where he finally managed to inspire the army into action - and then promptly went crazy AND got away with coming back from exile.

      They think the Revolution was over with after a couple of heads were lopped off. They have no idea about the media manipulation that was so bad that some young lady went all the way to find the paper's publisher - stomped half-way across the country with a knife - and killed him. Then she got her head lopped off too.

      I am, by no means, a historian but I've read a bunch and there are actually a few good, objective and information dense, documentaries on the subject. One of my favorites is entitled simply that, "The French Revolution." It's not too bad - it's four or five hours long, as I recall. (I'm too lazy to look it up.)

      But yeah, I don't know if you know this but outside of your country there are a whole bunch of people who think the French Revolution was a rosy affair that ended the way it was intended to end and was over when the kids (plural?) disappeared and Marie lost her head. The Revolutionaries were batshit insane and the whole society went batshit insane for quite a while. Yet, they've a romantic image that denies the reality.

      It ended up exactly nothing like what was intended. They tried to one-up each other to be the most common, for example. Complete with their manner of dress. I believe that it still impacts some of the customs today - but I forget which ones. Something about articles of clothing, socks, pointy shoes - or lack of them, or something like that.

      They've a crazy belief that it was something other than what it was - a time of insanity that culminated with Emperor Bonaparte and his eventual failings vs. Russians and English (Lord Nelson, maybe? I am NOT a historian) and was quite a dreadful affair. They, these people who romanticize it without knowing a damned thing about it, want us to emulate it - or at least express such sentiments. I don't think they know what they speak of.

      What I do not understand is who did the revisionist history? I don't think it was by the French. I know some French people and have been to France multiple times and even discussed it with a number of citizens and ex-pats. They're quite frank and realistic about it. They largely (at least in the ones I've communicated with) accept that it really wasn't all that it was cracked up to be but that it sort of worked out in the end.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:Iceland by KGIII · · Score: 2

      A number of people have recommended caution when proceeding forward with Unicode support - and for a variety of good reasons. That you were quite specific, something I've noticed about you - and appreciate, is that you said "for stories."

      That's probably the best choice as well as expanding a the subset that we're able to use currently. It might even be time to *gasp* slap an editor on there and let people use markdown.

      However, the complaints raised against Unicode are many and the things to be wary of are also many. Others have expressed it much more articulately than I can and I'll avoid boring you with repetition. Suffice to say, it does not look well when others can point, laugh, and say that you were warned. That you specifically stated stories makes me have high hopes for you.

      Given my druthers, I'd like to see some additional support but I see no use for the various kanji/emoticons/poop piles.

      Don't get me wrong - that will amuse me for days on end. If you enable the poop Unicode then I am going to use that character. I am going to find creative and unique ways to use that character and more. When they said that you don't want to allow that what they actually meant was that I visit and, because of this, the fewer buttons there are to push, the better off we'll be in the long-term.

      'Cause if you put a big red button that says, "DO NOT PUSH" and I in the same room together, I'm pushing that button as soon as you leave the room. It might blow up the world. It might lock the door and gas me. I'm still pushing that button. I am not even remotely unique in those regards. If you give me the poop icon or a new way to Rick-roll people, I will do that. I will do that to *you* on day one - and I actually appreciate you.

      It's probably important that you understand this. 'Cause I will find a way to make Unicode say things it does not and link to things it does not appear to link to. I can register a free domain name in about ten minutes and set up a redirection service even faster than people can figure it out. I've got time, patience, skill, and the maturity of a five year old.

      That said, I'm still waiting on you to find and change ONE number. It is literally one number and needs to be changed once. Use a text editor, search, select files and sub-folders, and search the code base for "50." Make that a new number. Any number > 50 is an improvement. If you want, I can do this for you - you just tell me what the number it is that you want there and promise to not press charges - in writing. ;-)

      Then again, it might take me a while to find that number. It's Perl. It's a combination of chicken-scratch and wingding fonts - worse, it's still actually gotta be translated from those into the original Norse before you can even work on it. But, eventually - I will find the right number. There are a finite number of values to change and the neighborhood kid has Ritalin and Adderall.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:Iceland by whipslash · · Score: 1

      What's the 50 number? Comment limit? I believe we already increased that, but let me know if you're still seeing that limit.

    21. Re:Iceland by Nostromo21 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Two truisms that came out of the FR:

      1. You can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor
      2. In order for the oppressed to overcome their oppressors, they invariably have to become like them

    22. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, wait, wait, what just happened? Testing something now:
      ÑÐÑÑ test Prüfung test ×'Ö¼Ö×"Ö×(TM)×Ö×" test expérimenter

    23. Re:Iceland by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The only things we envy Icelands for are:
      - Bjoerk
      - ccpgames.com
      - and: that my kids would be called as they ought to be: Adrian Angelosson, Aurora Angelosdaughtir and would not have my silly german surname. And yes, even if you object: we germans are "norse" or "teutonic", too!

      The rest of your rant is just bollocks.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Iceland by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's the comment limit and I just saw it the other day. Within the past week - I even commented as an AC to you not that long ago - a week and a half, maybe?

      Let me see what I can discover... *goes off searching and returns a few minutes later*

      Aright, I'm in the upper 40s right now. I'll post this and then, if it doesn't happen (I can take care of figuring this out in pretty quick order) I'll get back to you by my user account and, if it does, there will be an AC post. I'm sure you can tell the difference. I'm using my home in Maine as my proxy. I do have (and use) a VPN but I will avoid using it for this set of messages. (I believe admins see IP addresses, or did when I was playing with the earlier, open source, code.)

      Gimme a few minutes. I think I'm currently on post #45 for a 24 hour period.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    25. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although proposed by M. Guillotin, who opposed the death penalty, the prototype was built by Antoine Louis - who was beheaded.

    26. Re:Iceland by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Those are well put and astute observations.

      I hope you don't mind but I might borrow that and ponder it in the not too distant future.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    27. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry dude, but to (mis)quote the immortal words of Monty Python: "Dumbkopf, he IS the authorities!"

    28. Re:Iceland by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      To be honest, from looks and "genetics" he looks british to me.
      Most certainly not a viking or german or other norse.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    29. Re:Iceland by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I did not suspect that the "americans" know so few about the french revolution. (Not aimed at you, but supporting your annoyance)
      It was a very dark age for France. 30 years of troikas, tribunals, juntas killing each other and shopping of heads while they went around of everyone who dared to stretch/streak out his head to far.

      What I do not understand is who did the revisionist history?
      I don't think there is one. French revolution is a majour topic in all european states in history.

      a time of insanity that culminated with Emperor Bonaparte and his eventual failings
      Not really sure if I agree with your idea about Bonaparte, he was no different than Washington. While he was mad in the sense of trying to conquer half europe he was very rational in many ways. E.g. the most basic laws most countries in Europe have right now are all bases on "the code Napoleon" ... which in turn is based on old Roman law. E.g. not guilty until proven not innocent, that was a revolution in Germany and other countries. Even the biggest enemies of Napoleon, Friedrich the Great, introduced "his" laws in Prussia as a separation of State and Justitia. And the king, Friedrich the Great, lost his first court battle about a church ringing the bells to early ... and bit on his own "laws" he had introduced.

      Lord Nelson, maybe?
      Lord Nelson is famous for defeating a spanish/french fleet at Trafalgar, I believe that was the first Napoleon war. No big thing actually, if you know that the british standard of drills was light years ahead of the rest of the world and that they simply had the "better ships" with less draft and better maneuverability. They simply were able to go closer to shore, were faster and had a fire rate 3 or 4 times as high as the Spanish.

      The final blow to Napoleon was the battle at Waterloo lead by British troops under Wellington and Preusens (Prussia) Bluecher (about 70 year old at that time). There where small assortments of other troops involved but I don't remember the details.

      While that battle (who writes history again?) is most of the time devoted to Wellingtons strategic supremacy, and the Prussian troops discipline (marching like 36h straight till reaching the battle *just in time*) , it was utter luck in the end that the Prussian troops indeed reached the field *just in time*.

      History is complicated ... look at the american secession war. The modern myth is: it was all about slaves. However the slave issue only came "into the news" 2 or 3 years after the secession and as it seemed that the south was "winning". (Defending its cause and staying separated, not winning as in "conquering the north")

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    30. Re:Iceland by jernejk · · Score: 1

      That's like, your opinion man.

      Coming from one of the smaller EU member countries, I'm damn happy to have access to EU labor market.

    31. Re: Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucks sake.... now the village idiots are congratulating themselves for putting the kettle on and claiming to have invented boiling water.

    32. Re:Iceland by guises · · Score: 1

      It ended up exactly nothing like what was intended.

      I don't know how you can say this. They wanted to overthrow the aristocracy, they wanted free speech and an end to political prisoners, and they wanted an end to the corruption which was giving all of their money to the wealthiest few (mostly those same aristocrats). They got all of those things. It didn't happen overnight, France had several more revolutions during the 1800s, but they got it eventually and that first revolution, the one you're talking about, is what kicked it off.

    33. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half life 3 soonish

    34. Re:Iceland by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      None of what you say is new to anyone in Europe who is halfway educated. We have very detailed history lessons about the French Revolution at school, and I can assure you that nothing about it is romanticised. But I can't speak for the US and believe it might be possible that some Americans romanticise European history as well as their own.

    35. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said some random German guy, who comes from the only country that has interest in keeping the EU alive, the only one that has gained from the existence of the EU, and, as a consequence of that, also the only EU member country where anti-EU parties aren't skyrocketing in the polls (yet). What a HUGE surprise!

    36. Re:Iceland by kbg · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the Vikings kidnapped their women from?

      "The ancestry of the settlers is more controversial. Historical evidence suggests that not all of the settlers in Iceland originated from Scandinavia (Jones 1984). At the very least, it is believed that the settlers included a number of women and slaves from Norse settlements in the British Isles. There are numerous references in Icelandic medieval writings to the keeping of slaves, many of whom were obtained through raids on settlements in the British Isles (Jones 1984). Thus, the Icelandic founding gene pool may have received a substantial maternal contribution from the British Isles."

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

    37. Re:Iceland by Rei · · Score: 0

      Hehe... yeah our jails aren't particularly tough by western standards... even at Lítla Hraun, our "maximum security" prison, occasionally prisoners just walk out because the gates were left open accidentally (and usually walk back in). People who've been convicted of crimes actually schedule when they plan to meet at prison to serve their jail term.

      --
      If I ever become wealthy and mad, I'll leave Companion Cubes on desert islands for shipwreck survivors.
    38. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your rant doesn't change these three elementary facts, no matter whether one lives in Iceland or not:

      1) Iceland and Greece where basically on the same boat 6 years ago: they were going bankrupt, although for different reasons. The Icelandic banks were nationalized, hence markets considered their debt equivalent to government debt. It doesn't matter that Greece's crisis depended on the general budget while yours on your banks, the macroeconomic result was the same (government bonds' yields skyrocketing and liquidity freeze)

      2) Iceland has stayed out of the EU and defaulted on its (state-owned banks') foreign debts, while Greece did not default, remained in the EU and in the eurozone, and enforced the Troika-mandated reforms that Iceland Did_Not_Do (you think you "bowed"? Really? Then, by comparison, what did the Greeks do? They transformed themselves into human carpets?!)

      3) These are the self-speaking macroeconomic results (y/y GDP growth) of the two different strategies:
      https://www.imf.org/external/p...

      Iceland is doing great, at least for a country that 6 years ago was almost bankrupt, while Greece is now basically a second-world country. And I'm really sorry for its citizens, that I love (I'm Italian, I consider the Greeks my brothers).

      None of these facts depend on one's home address or country of residence, no matter how many caps locks you use in your writing.

    39. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like, your opinion man.

      Nope. That's electoral and polling evidence, not one's "opinion". Anti-EU politicians now top the polls everywhere: Grillo in Italy, Le Pen in France, Duda in Poland, Wilders in the Netherlands, and see the result of last year's Greek referendum, that was later betrayed by the Greek prime minister. Of course you're free to be pro-EU, but that doesn't magically make you part of the majority.

    40. Re: Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the dude who set a math test with no math in it. It was an insufferable smugness test. ;)

    41. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coming from one of the smaller EU member countries, I'm damn happy to have access to EU labor market.

      Your statement is blatantly illogical: excluding fiscal heavens, the two richest nations of the whole western world by per-capita GDP are both european (i.e., part of the european continent), "little" with respect to the size of their population, and both outside of the EU and the eurozone: Norway and Switzerland.

      Try to improve your own nation instead of promoting some zombie, identity-less EU superstate.

    42. Re:Iceland by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      They'll outright disbelieve you when you point out that the revolutionaries all ended up dead (for the most part).

      For the most part? I'm 100% certain they all ended up dead. After all, it happened more than 200 years ago ;)

    43. Re:Iceland by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      History is complicated ... look at the american secession war. The modern myth is: it was all about slaves. However the slave issue only came "into the news" 2 or 3 years after the secession and as it seemed that the south was "winning". (Defending its cause and staying separated, not winning as in "conquering the north")

      As you say, history is complicated. You claim that the modern myth is that it was all about slaves, while many claim that it had nothing to do with slaves and was about states' rights, but the truth is more complicated.

      The secessions themselves were triggered by slavery, or rather a perceived threat to slavery. The South feared that the incoming President Lincoln would try to reduce or even end slavery, and states started seceding even before he took office in March 1861, with seven of the eleven states that would secede publishing secession declarations by that time (and thus most seceded during the presidency of Buchanan, who did essentially nothing to stop it). Those declarations made very clear that secession was about protecting slavery.

      Lincoln did want to see an end to slavery, but even more, he wanted to preserve the Union. In a letter to the editor of the New York Tribune, he wrote:

      If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

      (Emphasis mine.)

      He held this view honestly, as slaves in states that did not secede (plus some parishes in Louisiana and a few counties in Virginia that I believe were held by Union forces) were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. The initial proclamation was made on 22 Sept 1862 and gave Confederate states until the end of the year to return to the Union, in which case they would be allowed to keep their slaves. After that, all slaves in rebel territory would be free in the eyes of the Union.

      This came 17 months after the start of hostilities, after the victory of Union forces at Antietam when the South's General Robert E. Lee withdrew from the battlefield before the North's General George McClellan did. McClellan's victory was almost accidental, but it prevented victory in the first major incursion by Confederate forces into Union territory. The victory was important enough for Lincoln to seize it as the moment to publicly announce the Emancipation Proclamation, which made the Civil War about slavery in the North as well as in the South. From that point on, foreign nations who had abolished slavery could no longer risk recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation, dooming the CSA's economy and what little chance they had at winning.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    44. Re: Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're American, thus your education is deficient. We make allowances for such things.

      You'd be hard pressed to find a schoolchild outside of the US, in a first world nation, who wasn't taught about the Terror in high school.

      Of course, Americans are kept ignorant by their masters. It makes them more compliant.

    45. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun fact:
      The first proper prison in Iceland was re-purposed in the beginning of the 20th century and is now being used as... wait for it... the Prime Minister's office!

    46. Re:Iceland by itsownreward · · Score: 2

      Fusion power, artificial general intelligence and unicode at Slashdot: three things that will always happen always twenty years in the future, no matter when asked.

      (On the plus side it used to be four things, but "Duke Nukem Forever" was finally published so there is some real hope. On the downside, it was really disappointing when it finally came to be, so...)

    47. Re:Iceland by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You forgot the reasons of the secession: tariffs and boycotts on the economy of the south. The south was about to get crippled by the north, so they seceded. Also falling into economic irrelevance as the north was in the middle of industrialization and the south missed that train.

      As I said: it is complex.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    48. Re:Iceland by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      It's the "monkeysphere" of the wealthy elite.

      In general, everyone belongs to a moneyshere - many overlap others. By any other name, it's a fancy word for degrees of separation. The old saying holds true, the death of an individual is tragic while the death of millions is a statistic. Be honest, when great earthquakes and a tsunamis occurred halfway around the world, did you actually shed a tear? I didn't. It's not that I'm a heartless bastard, just that I'm that far dissociated from them to say, a relative that recently passed away. I attended his funeral BTW. That's just have far removed the wealthy elite are from the rest of society. They're actions are self-destructive. Worse, they honestly don't know it! Does an apex predator know he's top of the food chain? Does a fish know it's wet?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    49. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. You can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor
      2. In order for the oppressed to overcome their oppressors, they invariably have to become like them

      Let's add the third:

      3. If people perceive that you are oppressing them too much, they will eventually lop your head off even if it doesn't really change anything in the long run.

    50. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only things we envy Icelands for are:

      Being the only country in the world to punish any bankers

      Makes up for a lot. Not saying Iceland is perfect, just not a terrible as everywhere else on the planet.

    51. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? Which French Revolution? (there was either two or three depending on your definition).

    52. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of Revisionism... the American Secession war was about slavery from the start. The right to own slaves was listed explicitly as a reason for the secession by several states. The other given reasons are like spokes on a wheel with slavery as it's hub. Without slavery, the wheel falls apart.

      States Rights? Only when it came to owning slaves. The Fugative Slave act that required a run away slave to be returned to his owner - even if the state they were caught in was a free state that did not allow slavery - that was a MASSIVE increase in Federal power and loss is States Rights. Was that fought by the so-called States Rights advocates in the south? Not at all, it was fought for by the so-called States Rights advocates.

      During the writing of the Constitution, the American Civil War was predicted over the cause of slavery, but it was a marriage of convenience - if we do not all hang together we will certainly hang separately sort of thing.

      The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave when it was made, true. But it clearly laid out what the war was about, what was going to happen.

      There are a lot of people who still are fighting for a return to the absolute hegemony of the whites.

    53. Re:Iceland by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Not quite as good as Oli North shredding documents one filing cabinet ahead of the Special Prosecute executing a search for documents though.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    54. Re:Iceland by Rei · · Score: 0

      1) Iceland and Greece where basically on the same boat 6 years ago

      There was essentially nothing in common between the economies of the two countries.

      they were going bankrupt

      Iceland was not going bankrupt 6 years ago.

      The Icelandic banks were nationalized

      The banks were not nationalized, any more than the US automakers were "nationalized". In fact, to make clear to the markets that they weren't nationalized the government sold off the stake they got at fire sale prices, losing us a ton of money.

      hence markets considered their debt equivalent to government debt.

      The markets have never considered the banks' debts to be government debts.

      2) Iceland has stayed out of the EU

      Iceland is in the EFTA and thus subject to most EU legislation either way.

      and defaulted on its

      The Icelandic government has NEVER DEFAULTED ON ANY DEBT. There is not a single court or ratings agency in the world who will tell you otherwise.

      (state-owned banks')

      They were not state-owned banks. They were private banks. With assets backed by a private fund. As fully confirmed by the EFTA court. You are asserting things that are in direct contradiction to the established legal facts of the situation.

      you think you "bowed"?

      Yes.

      Iceland is doing great

      We never had any fundamental economic or structural problems - just a cleptocratic government (reelected last term, hopefully about to get kicked out of office) and some massive private company failures. That said, the current government is doing their damndest to funnel as much of our economic output as they can into their and their friends' pockets. Trust me, almost nobody here thinks that things are "great". All of you foreigners who don't live here have no grounds to stand on when describing how "wonderful" the situation is here, with our crumbling healthcare system and cutbacks all across the welfare system to pay for policies to enrich the wealthy.

      None of these facts depend on one's home address or country of residence

      None of what you wrote is actually facts.

      Get out of fantasyland and stop telling someone about what the facts arein a place where they live and you don't.

      --
      If I ever become wealthy and mad, I'll leave Companion Cubes on desert islands for shipwreck survivors.
    55. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was essentially nothing in common between the economies of the two countries....Iceland was not going bankrupt 6 years ago....The markets have never considered the banks' debts to be government debts....

      Sure, that's probably why Icelandic government bonds' yields went above 12% (TWELVE percent) in 2008:

      http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

      Not sure what kind of job you do, but for the sake of Icelandic investors I sincerely hope you don't work in the banking industry. And for your own sake, I also hope that someone else prevents you from investing your own money.

    56. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to the proverbial Nordic honesty and moral character?

    57. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, that's probably why Icelandic government bonds' yields went above 12% (TWELVE percent) in 2008: http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

      Correct. And the chart that you linked actually underestimates how bad it was. My g/f worked at the FICC desk at a major IB, some days she was terrified, icelandic treasuries couldn't even be priced because the bid side of the trading book was empty, which technically means that there's no one buying at any price (!). She didn't know how to value clients' portfolios, let alone what to tell them, basically the theoretical value of their investments was... zero! After that crazy period she happily left the financial industry.

    58. Re:Iceland by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      Tariffs and boycotts were after-the-fact excuses. The one people blame was the Morrill Tariff, but Buchanan didn't sign that until March 1861, shortly before he left office and after seven states had already seceded (which also deprived opponents of the bill the number of senators needed to block its passage).

      If Lincoln hadn't been elected, it's unlikely the states would have seceded, at least at that time. They feared the loss of the institution of slavery that they believed Lincoln would pursue. (He probably would have, but by winding it down over time and possibly compensating Southerners for their transition to a non-slave economy.)

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    59. Re:Iceland by rworne · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. I tried typing those Icelandic names on my En-US keyboard and gave up after 30 minutes of wasted effort.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    60. Re:Iceland by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > You have used this resource too much; please try again later.

      That's what it said when I got to about 50 - but that's not the normal message. ;-) So, it might mean something broke - I didn't do it. I'll keep better count when I go on comment rampage and let ya know.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    61. Re:Iceland by whipslash · · Score: 1

      Yes you're right. It's in our queue to increase the limit hopefully soon

    62. Re:Iceland by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually the wifes where usually free woman. The kidnapped ones were slaves ...
      And bottom line: plenty of women simply joined them. Besides the wars and pilaging, the vikings were traders and settlers. And considering the way of living in brittany at that time, the vikings were much more civilized than the britons , e.g. bathing once a week and changing clothes to fresh washed ones.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    63. Re:Iceland by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      'Cause if you put a big red button that says, "DO NOT PUSH" and I in the same room together, I'm pushing that button as soon as you leave the room. It might blow up the world. It might lock the door and gas me. I'm still pushing that button.

      We should make such rooms. That would gas you... and kill you...

      It would clean up the human population of such people and the rest of us would be better off.

      If someone bothered to put a "do not push" sign, there is a fucking reason and if you're so stupid as to push it, then you don't belong in the human gene pool.

    64. Re:Iceland by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      Not at all, please do. I only plagiarised those from some other historian/scholar/writer from way back from memory - they are probably slightly mis-quoted anyway ;).

    65. Re:Iceland by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      But no, please please, tell me more about my country and how we're supposed to love our corrupt gun-smuggling perpetually-lying media-crushing government!

      If your government sucks so much, either vote in a replacement, or if that is not possible due to too much corruption, then overthrow it.

      Oh wait, you can't, because you don't have guns.

      And people wonder why so many Americans want to keep ours. Some of us remember the British and how they used to be.

      Governments are needed, we couldn't function without them, but sometimes they get out of control and need to go away.

    66. Re:Iceland by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      The first point is simple math/logic. If the 1%-ers own 50% of the wealth, if you then distribute that to the other 99% they only get roughly double of diddlee-squat they started with! And double of 'below the poverty line' does not make one rich, by any stretch. The pyramid (scheme) of wealth is one of the cornerstones of Capitalism after all. We all get sold the promise of becoming one of the lucky ~5% who will make it eventually. Most of us just end up being donkeys & mules for those 5%. I wouldn't even think that most of those 5% are all happy/content/at peace with their grand achievements either, at the end of their careers/lives.

      Another quote/wise words from a book by Noel Whittaker "Making Money Made Simple" from my youth: "If you make the pursuit of wealth your #1 goal, to the exclusion of all else, including love, family, friends, fame, happiness, etc...then you are bound to succeed". That's the simple formula for getting rich - and you don't have to be especially smart, good looking, well hung, or well connected to achieve that end (most rich people aren't/weren't before they got there...).

    67. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    68. Re:Iceland by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, there was a period of uncertainty when nobody knew what was going to happen. Not least of which, the Icelandic government.

      That doesn't change anything that was written above.

      To all of the people with these fantasyland views of Iceland as being some sort of anticaptalist paradise, you should know that Icelanders are making fun of you.

      --
      If I ever become wealthy and mad, I'll leave Companion Cubes on desert islands for shipwreck survivors.
    69. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't change anything that was written above.

      Ohhhh sure buddy. Except that Iceland was actually going bankrupt as the previous chart proves, the markets did consider banks' debts as if they were the government's as the chart proves, and contrary to what you said, the biggest Icelandic bank by assets (ISK 1.2 trillion) is still today 81% State-owned:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Basically, except everything you said, nothing changed.

      To all of the people with these fantasyland views of Iceland as being some sort of anticaptalist paradise, you should know that Icelanders are making fun of you.

      It is as funny as the chart above. Maybe even less. The saddest comedy sketch I've ever seen. Your posts are better.

    70. Re:Iceland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people wonder why so many Americans want to keep ours. Some of us remember the British and how they used to be.

      The most common usage for Americans in raising the flag of revolution seems to be random jokesters raising some grievance that isn't even halfway close to be legitimate, and you were probably taught that the British government was somehow tyrannical when that was hardly the case, and no worse than the government that was elected shortly after the new Constitution was signed.

      But keep believing that.

      Governments are needed, we couldn't function without them, but sometimes they get out of control and need to go away.

      Governments don't go away, that'd be silly.

      They just change the serial numbers.

    71. Re:Iceland by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It's amazing what revisionist history has done for the French Revolution.

      You don't say. Just how do you overthrow an oppressive oligarchy that's ruled for a thousand years in a neat, tidy and bloodless fashion?

  3. Definitely nothing to see here. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember citizens, 'conspiracy theorists' are just nutjob losers who want to blame the reptilians or whatever for the fact that their lives suck and their tinfoil hats are too tight. The world is, in fact, basically decent and as-described. Carry on.

    1. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanx to standing up for your filthy rich overlords. now kneel down and suck.

    2. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by dugancent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Conspiracy Theorist are nut job losers. Reporters, truly dedicated professionals and insiders are the ones that make this kind of information available, not people who post on conspiracy forums and rant on tumblr.

      You have to get away from the keyboard if you want to make a difference.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    3. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember citizens, 'conspiracy theorists' are just nutjob losers who want to blame the reptilians or whatever for the fact that their lives suck and their tinfoil hats are too tight. The world is, in fact, basically decent and as-described. Carry on.

      You might as well hand the conspiracy theorists credit for saying that WWE is fake. It's common knowledge that the super-rich hide assets, especially the politically elite in countries with weak democratic institutions.

      Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens. Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Vladimir Putin, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt's former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davio Gunnlaugsson.

      The only remotely surprising one on that list is the Icelandic Prime Minister, there's a smaller bombshell in:

      Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets.

      But again it's not that surprising, even in well developed western democracies there's corruption, the question is how many and who. It isn't even evidence that the rich are corrupt, middle class folks steal and cheat as well, there's no reason to think that getting a boatload of money magically makes people honest.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy Theorist are nut job losers. Reporters, truly dedicated professionals and insiders are the ones that make this kind of information available, not people who post on conspiracy forums and rant on tumblr.

      You have to get away from the keyboard if you want to make a difference.

      kind of ironic, given that this entire story was pretty surely achieved by people working at fucking keyboards

    5. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kind of ironic, given that this entire story was pretty surely achieved by people working at fucking keyboards

      Professionals. Not bedroom dwelling keyboard warriors.

      Journalists from more than 80 countries have been reviewing.....

    6. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I'm still certain that if every leader and ever rich person in the world was struck down the world would be a better place for about 10 years... until human nature rears it's ugly head and the next wave of scumbags gets power positions and abuses them.

      Humanity at it's core is selfish and loves, utterly loves control over others. Charity and compassion are only for outward appearances only in the bulk of the population. Most will hurt others for their own gain without hesitation if they can do it without repercussion.

      This is the way it always has been, and it's the way it will always be. the rich will always have a boot on the throat of the poor, the poor just needs to get over themselves and like it, or do the really ugly nasty thing so the circle can start again...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re: Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what are you going to do about it?? The only way forward is to embrace logic and full direct democracy.

    8. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "Reporters, truly dedicated professionals and insiders are the ones that make this kind of information available, not people who post on conspiracy forums and rant on tumblr."

      I doubt reporters are doing the hacking necessary to get these files leaked. So, no, the conspiracy theorist hackers that can PROVE shit (as is constantly being leaked left and fucking right) are the people you want to listen to.

      It's the very people behind the keyboards releasing this stuff. There's no 'real journalist' or 'professional reporter' anymore as they're all bought-out media fucks. Even NPR has fallen.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that the universe is a failure?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Talking about conspiracy theories, I find it interesting that the "Panama Leaks" is making front page news on European news outlets, Aljazeera, and others, but I can't find anything about it on any of the major American news outlets like CNN, Fox or MSNBC.

    11. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by peragrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would take longer than 10 years. Closer to 50. That's the trick with big social change you need to cycle through generations to make it stick. After all we are just coming to terms with the sexual and color rights revolution of the 60's.

      You have to let the generation who lead the revolution die of old age before you can say it was a success. That is why now is a great time to for the USA to get involved with Cuba. Raul and Fidel will be dead within the decade and their Cuba will die with them. Same goes to Russia. Russia hasn't really given democracy a chance yet. They haven't had the time and had too few leaders to make a change.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    12. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NPR had clearly fallen at least by around the time of the OJ Simpson trial... 20 years ago?

    13. Re: Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What am I going to do about it? Murder my conscience and do what the rich do. Steal, lie and cheat. Fuck the rest of you, all of you are lazy bastards that want a free handout. See how easy it is to start the climb to success? Steal from the poor because they just can not fight you in court. It's the fastest way up, and once you hit a certain personal worth, the law no longer applies to you as well. You can freely murder someone and get away scott free if you are rich.

    14. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by shilly · · Score: 1

      That is truly jaw-dropping. How do these editors live with themselves? I mean, Fox is relatively understandable, this doesn't fit their main narratives, but CNN and MSNBC?

    15. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still certain that if every leader and ever rich person in the world was struck down the world would be a better place for about 10 years

      Humanity at it's core is selfish and loves, utterly loves control over others.

      So? Keep killing. As long as it is beneficial to be a corrupt asshole the trait will stay in the gene pool.
      When we managed to create a society where those kind of people don't win then the trait will disappear.

    16. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by ProfanityHead · · Score: 1

      Washington Post has smallish article about the Putin connection, otherwise Americans only know about it because of Snowden on twitter.

    17. Re: Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did they get the data from?

    18. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that "the journalists" aren't doing anything here, except cherry-picking what to publish in a very suspicious way: they have 11.5 million documents from a Panama law firm whose clients are mostly from the west, however, they only published 149 documents (out of the 11.5 millions), mostly about Putin, Assad and the Chinese President.

      Note that the organization that received all the documents is the so called "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists", whose biggest donor is George Soros' Open Society Foundation..

      Hopefully Wikileaks will soon get their hands on all of the files, so we'll finally have the whole picture. And it will surely be FUN.

    19. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nobody wants the Polonium enema.

    20. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by dryeo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The thing with democracy is people who have no experience with it need to be eased into it. The countries descended from the English have done not too bad with democracy as they were eased into it over hundreds of years. Some of the other western countries had a rocky road to democracy, France with how many republics, other countries such as Spain with side trips into Fascism.
      This is why most all the Socialist revolutions failed, they were very naive, attempted to go from serfdom to full democracy and in almost all cases the revolutions got hijacked by authoritarian arseholes who didn't give one shit about the people.
      How to ease them into democracy, I'm not sure.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    21. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      You show it to them. Also you forgot it took the USA 20+ years to ease into democracy that is only because the leaders of our revolution didn't want the power of leaders, They wanted peace, and to control their own fate. But yes one can't give the gift of freedom, it has to be wanted by at least the majority of the population. You can't do it in one shot.

      Watching China's communist government switch over to democracy over the next century will be interesting. There is too much bureaucracy in china for it to go quickly, but they will do so as more and more bureaucrats want things done their way, er I mean the party way. Even the current purge, of rich billionaires, is just a step towards more and more freedom in China.

      The real question is after all the violence and as they get tired of hatred, and yes people get tired of fear and hate. What will the middle east turn into?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    22. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Bedroom?

      Surely, you mean basement.

      On the other hand, I can see why you might be confused. But hey, you're not living with your mother. It's the basement. It's your OWN apartment - except when she's gotta do laundry, empty the cat box, or bring you pizza rolls. That wadded pile of blankets over next to the water heater IS your bedroom, damn it. You even had a girl over. Once. She's gonna call you back, any minute now.

      (If you're gonna do stereotypes, at least get 'em right. Sheesh... Do I have to do everything around here?)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    23. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The American colonies had some democracy before the revolution with most (all?) of the colonies having elected legislatures and appointed executives (Governors etc) who could override the legislature but often listened and took the peoples will into account. One of the motivations for the Revolution was that the peoples rights as Englishmen were being violated, namely the right not to be taxed without representation. The English system being that the King could not raise taxes without agreement from Parliament, an institution that slowly became more and more democratic.
      China is taking an interesting course, with freedom being slowly parceled out. There's also a lot of Chinese getting their education in the west. It'll be interesting.
      The Middle East is a good example of many peoples who currently are not ready for democracy and even with most getting sick of fear and hate, there's a lot of powerful people there who are quite willing to continue it. It's really hard to imagine the Middle East turning into a peaceful, free land of democracies soon.
      As for Cuba, it would be nice if they could get a working legislature with some real power and the legislature get more and more power, but not too quickly as they need their own traditions to follow.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    24. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      but I can't find anything about it on any of the major American news outlets like CNN, Fox or MSNBC.

      Got a sneaking suspicion that US news outlets want to know if Obama administration people or their cohorts have been implicated in the documents before they start publishing.

      The real documents and investigative articles have not yet been published. The time will come.

    25. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      I cannot equate offshore assets automatically with malfeasance in office. Plenty of the world's massive family fortunes have been built on the backs of ventures in ruthless private industry.

      Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets.

      For instance, I don't have any trouble believing some members of the House of Lords come from some good family names who's money was looted thousands of years ago.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    26. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "even" NPR? NPR takes government money, that's kind of the whole point. OF COURSE they parrot the line that the government wants its NGOs to take.

      And the other media institutions, they're officially bought by the advertisers, which sounds better, but turns out not to be any different.

    27. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by SNRatio · · Score: 1

      I think most American news operations were shut out; they're getting the story second hand while many European groups were probably working on this for weeks. The one exception I found is McClatchy:

      http://www.mcclatchydc.com/

    28. Re: Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, one of them got off his ass to fly to Iceland to conduct that interview that the PM stormed out of.

    29. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That way just leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Better than the alternative, bend over and spread.

    30. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      So, after a major revelation of worldwide conspiracy, you'd call conspiracy theorists about this "nut jobs".. even though the entire premise of this article would prove them correct? Are you even borderline sentient, or do you just not understand what a conspiracy is?

    31. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Raul and Fidel will be dead within the decade and their Cuba will die with them.
      That would be a shame. I hope it won't and the filthy americans are kept out of Cuba.

      Russia hasn't really given democracy a chance yet. Will likely take another 50 years ...
      "Democracy" is not the problem. The problem are the rulers ... which are not the "official politicians" whos names we know.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    32. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kool aid tastes good, dunnit?

    33. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      But again it's not that surprising, even in well developed western democracies there's corruption, the question is how many and who. It isn't even evidence that the rich are corrupt, middle class folks steal and cheat as well, there's no reason to think that getting a boatload of money magically makes people honest.

      Maybe the shocking news here is that more world leaders aren't on the list.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    34. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you believe this arrogant, condescending, racist, and xenophobic rant of yours? Product of `democracy' indeed.

    35. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets."

      If you live in the UK that's not in the remotest bit surprising, Lord Ashcroft one of those mentioned was exposed way back in the early 2000s, and evidence has trickled out about him ever since. There was a massive uproar because he was a non-Dom for tax reasons, and yet was allowed to be involved in politics. The public weren't happy that someone who isn't actually British was allowed to partake in British governance, and so there was a big push to make him drop that status. He did and has avoided (and possibly evaded) tax in other ways. It seems those could well now have been exposed also.

      The others named aren't new names on this front either, they're all fairly well known for being as dodgy as they come on this front. There are some that are equally as dodgy but that aren't named - those ones probably just use a different firm.

    36. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Optic7 · · Score: 1

      CNN, Fox, and MSNBC can hardly be called "news" outlets anymore. This was one of the top stories on NPR this morning though, and also on Marketplace, a national business/money-oriented public radio show.

    37. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking about conspiracy theories, I find it interesting that the "Panama Leaks" is making front page news on European news outlets, Aljazeera, and others, but I can't find anything about it on any of the major American news outlets like CNN, Fox or MSNBC.

      I just checked and it is literally the top headline on CNN's website

    38. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's not that bad in the first world, but basically Pareto principle or 80/20 rule applies, 20% of the population will tend to hold 80% of the wealth and earn 80% of the income, and the holders of 80% of the Wealth and earners of 80% of the income aren't necessarily the same people. Likewise 80% of your income is from 20% of your effort, if I had as much effort and money into investments when I was in my late teens and twenties as I did in getting drunk and chasing pussy, I'd be getting a lot more of each now.

      Yet even if I had a legacy big enough to be one of the1%ers, it's highly likely that my great-grand kids would have to work.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    39. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Russia hasn't really given democracy a chance yet.

      Oh BS, Russia has a strong History of Democracy, it's actually against the law for people to not vote there, and has been since near the Bolshevik Revolution. Now have two parties to democratically choose between, not so much.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    40. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only remotely surprising one on that list is the Icelandic Prime Minister, there's a smaller bombshell in:

      So much for the proverbial Nordic honesty, innit?

    41. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      That Sir is one of the more astute comments in this thread. I really have no problem with people who have earned wealth through honest hard work and/or luck, having paid their fair share of taxes on the income, moving their asset to more tax-advantaged locations. Free market capitalism also involves Government and their tax systems. On the other hand if the wealth was acquired through corruption and political leaders raiding the national coffers, I have no problem with confiscating the assets and hanging them by their balls until they rot off.

      My suspicion is because showing a Politician whose asset management style is less than saintly sells more paper than showing a despot who everybody knew is a scumbag does, The Brit skipping out on a couple thousand in taxes gets the coverage that a Nigerian stealing Millions doesn't.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    42. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem to be a bit slow, but its on CNN now:

      Here

    43. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why now is a great time to for the USA to get involved with Cuba. Raul and Fidel will be dead within the decade and their Cuba will die with them. Same goes to Russia.

      The average obese american idiot tries to amuse the audience "predicting" the future, confusing it with his dreams and the propaganda he has been subjected to. In the meantime:

      - Russia has just easily won two wars in two years (Ukraine and Syria), in both cases against US-backed gangsters and terrorists

      - Miguel Diaz Canel - a hardline Marxist in his 50s, and very popular in Cuba - has been appointed by Fidel and Raul Castro as their successor

      - In the european continent, far-left and far-right parties are skyrocketing in the polls, both have anti-americanism and anti-capitalism in common

      Please, keep your trashy oligarchy-run, bilderberg-style "democracy", your brainwashing TV shows and your junk food all within your borders. Nobody wants them anymore, they smell bad, just like these two monsters here:
      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...

    44. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You have no idea how NPR is funded. A *HUGE* majority of that funding is by public donations to local member stations.

      NPR wouldn't lose much if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting pulled their funding.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    45. Re:Definitely nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, the US needs to leave Cuba the fuck alone!!

  4. Nobody from the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Looking around, it doesn't look like there are any people listed from the US.

    https://panamapapers.icij.org/the_power_players/

    1. Re:Nobody from the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rich people don't pay taxes there.

    2. Re:Nobody from the USA? by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Funny

      Americans don't use the "fourth largest" provider or such services... It's not even in the top 3!

    3. Re:Nobody from the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "campaign contributions". Or, to put it another way... any politician money can buy.

    4. Re:Nobody from the USA? by Torvac · · Score: 2

      exactly my first reaction. and the headline has "putin" everywhere - (putins best friend actually). quite obvious who leaked this stuff, and also the timing is just right. this is how you use intelligence data to get stuff done.

    5. Re:Nobody from the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I noticed that too.

      Considering there are no Americans, Canadians, UK or Israeli citizens... and only 1 British Citizen, this is probably a state-sponsored hack by the west.

      We should be seeing a list containing the names of people like Trump, Clinton, Bush, Bronfman, Cheney, Buffet, Silverstein, etc. Now THAT would be interesting...

    6. Re:Nobody from the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a dozen or so companies with the Trump name and Chinese officers/directors. How long will it take for us to find out if the The Donald has long been a Manchurian candidate for the Chinese? He's the WINNER!

  5. Good Friends by alphatel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Concert cellist Sergei Roldugin has known Vladimir Putin since they were teenagers and is godfather to the president's daughter Maria. On paper, Mr Roldugin has personally made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from suspicious deals. But documents from Mr Roldugin's companies state that: "The company is a corporate screen established principally to protect the identity and confidentiality of the ultimate beneficial owner of the company."

    Tomorrow's papers: Sergei Roldugin was found in his Moscow apartment this afternoon, apparently from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the back of the head.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:Good Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tomorrow's papers: Sergei Roldugin was found in his Moscow apartment this afternoon, apparently from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the back of the head.

      Twice.

    2. Re:Good Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truth of the matter is that absolutely nothing will happen. The powers to be are beyond reproach in that country and don't really have to hide their thievery.

    3. Re:Good Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The powers to be are beyond reproach in the USA and don't really have to hide their thievery."

      FTFY

    4. Re:Good Friends by KGIII · · Score: 2

      This might not make sense but I'll try to explain my line of thinking and then you may, or may not, agree. However, hear me out for a minute...

      If that happened, it would be a good sign. I know, someone will have died. However, it'd be an indicator that they're scared and worried about the repercussions from an angry populace. It would mean that they want retribution. It would mean that they are worried about other information getting released.

      That nothing has happened, or will happen, is a sure sign that they're not worried about winning any more. They're no longer worried about being caught. They no longer fear the repercussions. More importantly, they no longer fear the citizenry - to the point where they're comfortable with their dirty laundry being aired and have absolutely no intentions on stopping the bad behavior now.

      That they don't care, that this man is still alive, those are bad things. In a way, it would be great if it was found having stabbed himself in the back, to death, tomorrow morning. That'd mean they care and, if caught, would face punishment and they worry about it.

      Hmm... That's not the most articulate but if you can turn that word jumble into something meaningful then you'll understand what I'm trying to say. The government should be afraid of the citizens, not the other way around. Fear, in some cases, is nothing more than a healthy respect. It doesn't have to be bad that the government fears the citizens. In fact, it's ideal that they do - though there's always the Law of Diminishing Returns. Well, almost always such a law. The Law, itself, seemingly subject to itself.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Good Friends by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Nothing at all will happen. Putin doesn't care about this 'revelation' any more than he or his cohorts cared about information released about the Attorney General of Russia Chaika and his children (video) This person still keeps going strong, so do his children, and the information released about them ties them to the criminal organization responsible for the biggest case of multiple murders including little children in Russia in the last decade.

    6. Re:Good Friends by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > Nothing at all will happen.

      My sentiments and fears, in a nutshell.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Good Friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happened to a certain US journalist working on a certain sensitive topic...

    8. Re:Good Friends by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      Putin controls the media in Russia fairly well and the Kremlin has already issued the usual statement that this is a foreign information war campaign to discredit him and mother Russia. So yeah, nothing will happen - except in case some of the offshore money is frozen during investigations, once billions are involved things will happen at one place or another.

  6. curious bias in summary by sittingnut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    these papers implicate lots of western politicians directly, esp from uk. to quote "Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties", and david cameron family .

    in contrast, putin's implication is indirect at best, with vague indefinite connections,"The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin - is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married."
    best friend not described as that before? and location of a wedding reception?

    but this summary only mentions non western leaders(if we ignore iceland), as of now. curious!
    who is /. afraid of ?

    1. Re:curious bias in summary by bug1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A story about probable corrupt practices and conspiracy to defraud by thousands of powerful organisations going back to 1970.

      And your concerned about the bias in the summary on one of thousands of sites linking to it.... priorities, my friend.

    2. Re:curious bias in summary by whipslash · · Score: 2

      We have no fear. This story was submitted by a user, as are most of our stories, and that's what they wrote. Luckily we have great commenters to add color to the story.

    3. Re:curious bias in summary by whipslash · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also the leaders mentioned were mentioned by name in the Guardian article, where as the rest were not

    4. Re:curious bias in summary by ledow · · Score: 1

      Maybe Putin is a lot better at this "h money" shit than some random MP (have you seen some of our former MPs? You'll be amazed they can tie their shoes) and so it's a lot harder to pin anything down to him personally?

    5. Re:curious bias in summary by khallow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      in contrast, putin's implication is indirect at best, with vague indefinite connections,"The Russian presidentâ(TM)s best friend â" a cellist called Sergei Roldugin - is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putinâ(TM)s daughter Katerina got married." best friend not described as that before? and location of a wedding reception?

      In contrast to what? Putin is a bigger fish than even Cameron much less some MPs. Sure, it's "indirect", but most of the people associated with the Putin story wouldn't have that kind of money without Putin's help (as noted in the article). For example, his alleged "best friend", Sergei Roldugin apparently has at least 100 million USD. But why would he have anything at all, if it weren't for his relationship with Putin? At this point, the only real question is what is Putin's take from these shenanigans?

      There have been some wild guesses as to Putin's wealth, going up to 200 billion USD. At least, an inside peek like this will give us a better idea of how much looting is going on.

    6. Re:curious bias in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish there were an objective third party without axe to grind, or an outrage to cause for the ads sales, with fair and balanced reporting. Media bias is often so apparent it feels like manipulation, and makes you question the facts even in the most basic of news reports relating to subjects such as Putin-and-his-buddies-pals-and-frieds.

    7. Re:curious bias in summary by Amouth · · Score: 1

      There have been some wild guesses as to Putin's wealth,

      The real question for me is WHY? why do we care what Putin's personal net worth is? We already know who he is, what he does, and what is character is like. Spending energy chasing his various hidden agendas does nothing for the general public.

      Now spending that energy on the revolving door that is western politics. That would be useful to either expose corrupt politicians or make it known for potentials.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    8. Re:curious bias in summary by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The main evidence that Roldugin is, indeed, one of Putin's close friends is that he is the godfather of Putin's daughter.

      And the fact was known long before, it just wasn't of particular importance. Roldugin himself said that he's been a very close friend since 70s when he was interviewed for one of Putin's biographies (sorry, it is in Russian, but you can find the reference after using Google Translate or similar by searching for Roldugin's name). That biography came out in 2000.

    9. Re:curious bias in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a sting regarding all the tax dodging the world's elite use, it's just one company of many and their clients. If you think this is bad, consider who is using the companies that are bigger than this one, i.e. the best, which have yet to be caught.

    10. Re:curious bias in summary by khallow · · Score: 1

      The real question for me is WHY?

      To belabor the obvious, the original poster was implying that if Putin's name isn't directly on the paperwork, then he isn't involved. A lot of people are of the view, if it's not seen, then it doesn't exist. Which does make sense. It's not that hard to frame people, even world leaders, if you don't have to provide evidence.

      Spending energy chasing his various hidden agendas does nothing for the general public.

      Why would you think that? It's not like Putin is dogcatcher of some podunk town in the middle of nowhere. His corruption and the other nasty things he does affects tens of millions. And as I indicated above, you need proof, not just some vague feeling about the guy, if you're going to change the minds of people who aren't already on your side or if Putin is to ever face justice in a serious court for his crimes.

  7. "Massive Corruption"? by tomhath · · Score: 4, Interesting
    FTFA:

    Though there is nothing unlawful about using offshore companies, the files raise fundamental questions about the ethics of such tax havens

    So the leaks don't expose much of anything. This does raise the obvious question of where did that money come from in the first place, but that's old news.

    1. Re:"Massive Corruption"? by cryptolemur · · Score: 5, Informative

      While it's not illegal to use offshore companies, the moment one "forgets" to mention to his friendly, local tax official about the 500 million pounds/dollars one "earned" last year, and are now hidden behind the facade of these offshore companies (that actually exists only for that sole purpose), it becomes illegal. At least in Europe.

      Well, at leat for now. Our marvelous right-wing cabinet did try to make tax evasion legal, but they received enough of a shit-storm to delay the plan.

    2. Re:"Massive Corruption"? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Did that happen?

    3. Re:"Massive Corruption"? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It can have significant effects in countries where the people listed have made a public stance against offshores and such.

      For example, Putin has been complaining about how too many government officials have foreign bank accounts, villas etc, and how it's detrimental to state security because all of those can be used as blackmail. And, of course, his overall anti-Western stance, that includes financial corruption as one of the justifications. Now all that is demonstrated to be bullshit. And you might say that everybody knew that already - well, not in Russia...

    4. Re:"Massive Corruption"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The journalists cannot determine tax fraud, because they do not have access to the tax data - at least in most countries, this data is protected. So only the local prosecutors and tax authorities can determine that.

      So it might be possible that all of those offshore accounts were installed just for the fun of storing your money in a fake company in Panama...

    5. Re:"Massive Corruption"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      it becomes illegal. At least in Europe.
      No it is not. Or how is it possible that European countries like Netherlands and Ireland participate in such Offshore Company schemas?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:"Massive Corruption"? by paavo512 · · Score: 1

      It can have significant effects in countries where the people listed have made a public stance against offshores and such. For example, Putin ...

      Unfortunately, this will have no effect on Putin. He might even win some more support as a clear victim of the evil western propaganda.

  8. Where are the US politicians and businessman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hmmm... Weird. Also, Canadians, British, Germans, etc. Something is not right.

    1. Re:Where are the US politicians and businessman? by hazeii · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a very good point;it's almost less what's there, than what's been left out.

      As i understand the story so far, some southerm german paper gets this leak and enlists a *Washington DC* organisation (ICIJ) to ensure the relevant informatiion is appropriately publicised.

      --
      All your ghosts are just false positives.
    2. Re: Where are the US politicians and businessman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Süddeutsche Zeitung is one of the largest newspapers in Germany with a coverage and subscriber base centered on the southern states of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria. It's a far cry from just some newspaper, and they correctly worked through international journalism associations to provide coverage and multiple reviews of the data.

    3. Re:Where are the US politicians and businessman? by Tapewolf · · Score: 2

      This is a very good point;it's almost less what's there, than what's been left out.

      As i understand the story so far, some southerm german paper gets this leak and enlists a *Washington DC* organisation (ICIJ) to ensure the relevant informatiion is appropriately publicised.

      If I'm reading it right, this is the first tranche. The US might get its turn later.

    4. Re:Where are the US politicians and businessman? by ravenscar · · Score: 1

      The ICIJ is part of the Center for Public Integrity. Major donors for CPI are The Ford Foundation, The John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Think about who left the original endowments to these organizations - the original industry barons (and children of those barons) of the U.S. Then think about the likelihood that these reports will expose many old-money US citizens.

      I suspect we'll see a flood of info on wrong-doing from leaders of non-Western nations. I suspect we'll see a few unfortunate sacrificial lambs from Western nations, but that's all.

    5. Re:Where are the US politicians and businessman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... Weird. Also, Canadians, British, Germans, etc. Something is not right.

      The company itself specializes in British tax shelters and primarily deals with companies formed in the British Virgin Islands according to wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised if it is heavy on certain nationalities and not others.

  9. Nah by tomhath · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Nobody is starving just because people with money are using legal tax shelters.

    1. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is that so? Are you sure?

    2. Re:Nah by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody is starving just because people with money are using legal tax shelters.

      Sure they are; government assistance programs are not as funded as they could be.

    3. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can name a nation of people suffering because fucks like David Cameron and George Osbourne are removing welfare that WORKING people need in order to work and be independent, while they and their cronies all benefit from a wage increase.

      And now to find out they are probably throwing money through these tax schemes on top?
      They will get destroyed if any link is found. Absolutely destruction of their whole party.
      I would hardly be surprised if the lying hypocrite fuck is part of it. He lies through his teeth so hard every single day.

      These people, just like scummy multinationals, are stealing money from taxpayers in every country they work.
      Money owed to the state.
      Don't give me your "but capitalism" bullshit, capitalism is at the core of corruption in the financial world and regulation IS needed to keep them in order.
      The free market is the worst thing. It should be banned universally.
      All it has lead to it regulatory committees being paid off, or being created BY said companies just to appease a government-run agency, despite them doing absolutely nothing to stop the corruption they should be stopping. (hell, then you have groups like the FDA and FCC in the US being paid off all the damn time to turn away and ignore things)

      People are literally dying horrible, painful slow deaths because of these companies releasing toxic foods and products that go out for years before 3rd parties catch them.
      It matters for naught, as nothing can be done anyway besides "hey, hey guys, stop selling these things okay?", so it is pretty pointless them saying anything!

      It needs to stop. NOW.

    4. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes they are you colossal asshat

    5. Re:Nah by Cederic · · Score: 5, Informative

      And now to find out they are probably throwing money through these tax schemes on top?

      So you're basically just ranting with no actual facts, just blind ignorance.

      Made more ironic that it's been known for years that Cameron's family fortune was in fact made through tax havens:
      http://www.theguardian.com/pol...

      Try and be a little more informed, a little less blinkered and a fuckload less bloody stupid.

    6. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can name an idiot whose swallowed Rupert Murdoch's cumload

    7. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's cute that you are smart enough to post on Slashdot, but stupid enough to lap up drivel not backed by objective statistics. You are just another bigoted moron too stupid to realize that people feeding you the crap you parrot are your real enemies.

    8. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton Foundation?

    9. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do hope you have at least some inkling of the level of irony here.

    10. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates's foundation?

    11. Re:Nah by KGIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Non sequitur... It does not follow. Literally.

      It does not follow that if the government had more money that they'd be spending it on social safety nets. It does not matter the government, it simply does not follow. It is not necessarily true that they'd be more inclined to feed the hungry than they would be to make a down payment on yet-another-expensive-defense-project.

      I've been alive for quite a while and that doesn't necessarily make me wise - but it does mean I've had the chance to witness a lot of things. One of the things I've witnessed is that governments, at least the more stable of them, don't actually have an income problem. Not at all. They have a spending problem. We talk about the tax breaks and the tax rates while ignoring the fact that the overall taxation rate on GDP is actually as high was it has ever been.

      No, the governments have plenty of money. They just spend it on some really stupid things - like another bomber, fighter, aircraft carrier, or straight up hookers and blow. A trivial, nearly meaningless, sum might actually go/have gone to needy people but that's not even a certainty. Hell, it's not even a high probability. So, that doesn't follow. If the government had more money, there's almost certain more hookers and more blow and those just aren't going to do themselves, you know.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Honey, if you don't pay your taxes you deserve to be ruined and jailed. I couldn't care less of "what governments would do with more money", although it is absolutely reasonable to assume thatthey would avoid spend it in programs that create political consensus among voters, which leads to the opposite of your conclusion.

    13. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, people might not literally starve. But the rest of us will pay more in taxes to cover the costs of running the government while the ultra-weathy exercise legal options to avoid taxes that regular taxpayers can't. Even if you accept that government simply spends too much, what it does spend still comes out of those taxpayers that pay their taxes, whether at full rate or spectacularly discounted through creative legal methods. Sure, we can work to lower the costs and the need for tax revenue in the first place, but it has to come from *somewhere*, and the ultra-weathy have done fine income-wise or in terms of lower tax rates over the last couple of decades.

      That's assuming the methods being used are actually legal.

    14. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LA had a bunch of money for public WiFi, and it was spent on "outreach and education".

      Captcha is 'bloated', which describes the system of bureaucrats and NGOs that absorb any money the government says it wants to spend on that kind of thing. At least when the government buys a fighter jet, it gets a fighter jet. Of some sort. Even if it gets a fighter jet that doesn't really fight much better than the old one.

    15. Re:Nah by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't really have a problem with tax breaks, as some call them. Many people don't understand them and will call them "subsidies" or "tax-breaks" or other things without actually understanding them. For example, it'd be fucking moronic to tax a business on income other than its profit. Lots of people who complain about things like taxation (and this is NOT an accusation about you personally - let me make that clear) don't even know the difference between revenue and profit.

      I've had conversations that went a bit like this:

      They: That company had 1.2 billion in revenue. There's no reason they shouldn't be paying half of that in taxes.
      Me: Their profit was .3 billion.
      They: Then they need to make more money.

      They: All corporations suck!
      Me: Did you mean that? Really?
      They: Yes. Every corporation is evil, money-grubbing, thieves.
      Me: You mean like the EFF or Linux Foundation? How about the ACLU, Habitat for Humanities, or BSD?

      They: No, they can't let the guy park his car in the underground parking lot for free. It's against the law.
      Me: Wait, what?
      They: They have a legal obligation to make all the money they can, at any expense, and anything else puts the CEO in jail.
      Me: Are you high?
      They: It's called fiduciary duty, you fucking idiot. Look it up on Wikipedia! It's predatory stock-holders doing it!

      I've had multiples of those conversations in the past month.

      So, you'll have to pardon my skepticism when it comes to people, on this site in particular, attempting to discuss matters not pertaining to computers and technology.

      I don't know what your income bracket is but I know that I sold my business and retired 8 years ago. As such, I know what the "wealthy" pay in taxes. I also pay attention to the numbers.

      Now, this part might be confusing for you. I'll try to make it clear but I'm not the most articulate.

      I have a few dollars. You'd call me rich or wealthy if you saw my bank account. And yes, if you need verification then I've actually met multiple people from this very site - in person. I have also been doxxed, back before it was even a thing.

      My tax records are not a matter of public record but I pay capital gains rates. I don't do short-term investing. Just so that you know, a good rule of thumb is that if you hold onto it for longer than a year then it is taxed at capital gains rates. If you hold it less than that then it counts as regular income and is taxed at regular income rates - on the same exact form that you have access to. But, so you know, my overall rate, prior to reducing my burden, is 23% - counting both State and Federal. I can reduce it further than that, in a whole host of ways, but I don't really bother.

      This is leading to the confusing part...

      I not only don't mind taxes but I feel that I could pay more in taxes and not even notice. It's my duty to not really pay more than is required. I'm not very good at that - ask my accountant. I don't save receipts, I donate anonymously, I don't write off/down most of the things I buy that are business related.

      Business related? Absolutely. I'm still very much the chief executive officer for several incorporated groups of people. They're rather passive things but the information, the articles of incorporation/corporate charter, can all be dug out of the records easily enough. That's besides the point.

      The point is, you can incorporate if you want. Hire yourself as a sub-contractor and pay you to go to your day job. It might be worth it, if your tax burden is high enough.

      But, like I said... I don't mind taxes and would actually happily pay more if I had any reason to believe it'd be spent wisely. When I sold my business, I did donate to the government. Yes, donate. I gave the US Government money, my money, and without force. I specifically was able to donate to NASA. In case your'e curious, you can donate to NASA but you can't earmark the donation for a project. Donations must go to the general operations fund. I was wantin

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    16. Re:Nah by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Tax havens exist for everybody.

      Everyone can craft a limited liability company or incorporated in a tax haven. They are actually usually no "tax havens" but have simply retarded laws regarding "offshore companies". Try to live in such a tax haven and they tax you like any other country.

      Most of the time it is easy from any country - where ever you live - and obviously even completely legal.

      Everyone who is not doing it, has his own reasons, probably just o lazy to do the paper work or lack of trust in the the lawyers needed in the "destination country".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Nah by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      The point is, you can incorporate if you want. Hire yourself as a sub-contractor and pay you to go to your day job. It might be worth it, if your tax burden is high enough.

      Intriguing. Please tell more.

    18. Re:Nah by KGIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      Consult a legal professional.

      However, filing an application to incorporate isn't hard. You generally need three people. One will be president, the VP, and the third will be the treasurer. Or, COO, COE, or COO. Or whatever, really. You just need to fill in those parts of the document.

      You basically use your SSN as your tax ID number - they work just fine for that purpose. If the asset's primary use is for the business (in this case, you doing your job) then you can write it off. You can't write off lunch with your wife - necessarily. If she's in sales and you're entertaining a prospective customer then you can write it off. You probably won't be able to write off your whole car but you might get some depreciation. (Don't forget to claim it when you sold it or traded it in.)

      There are lots of things to do. Incorporate AND hire an accountant and keep the lawyer on retainer. Depending on how much you make, it'll probably save you money in the first year. You can incorporate and get the protections associated with it. Your boss might need to be amicable to this.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:Nah by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      The point is, you can incorporate if you want. Hire yourself as a sub-contractor and pay you to go to your day job. It might be worth it, if your tax burden is high enough.

      Intriguing. Please tell more.

      I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    20. Re:Nah by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Non sequitur... It does not follow. Literally.

      For one as limited as you, you may struggle to see the connection but it is obvious. It is largely a zero sum game with a run off valve. There are X pounds in tax to be paid, there are Y pounds circulating around the economy, there are also Z costs that need to be paid. When greedy citizen A uses the run off valve to remove some of the money for his own purposes, this means that the shortfall in X has to be covered by the rest of us in the form of higher taxes. This affects the lowest earning citizens the most and yes, in many cases literally means they cannot afford food or other necessities.

      You see the issue is, when you and I, as working stiffs hide our money from Mr Cameron, he sends some nice men from HMRC to your house with a nice letter that says "pay or go to jail". However when someone like Mr Cameron does it, he's hard done by.

      No, the governments have plenty of money.

      Only the truly naive believe this. The fact is a lot of costs need to be paid and if not paid by the government end up being pushed onto you with a markup. The US health insurance system is a good demonstration of this. Despite all the flaws of the NHS, it's still cheaper than the US system and more effective for anyone except those earning above 150,000 pounds.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    21. Re:Nah by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I live in one of these tax havens... I pay taxes. Quite a lot of them. Less than in the neighbouring countries, but since it's so tiny here, living here is so very expensive that I sometimes think people in neighbouring countries have it better due to a lower cost of living.

      Anyway, that's not what I came to say. While it is most certainly true that everybody could profit from these tax havens by "filing the paperwork", that is not entirely true. Many require you to create companies and I know as a fact, than in my country that's not cheap. Well, okay, it'll cost you about the price of a small family car. Is that much? Not really if you've got millions or billions. So, that is one barrier of entry.

      Also keep in mind that many smaller businesses and private persons, need their income to actually live. So, that 100000$ income you have? You need it. No way you offshore it all, so you can save on taxes. Bigger companies and very rich individuals have the luxury of having a certain fluidity and can do with that "extra money", including making it disappear in shady tax schemes.

      Finally, the above problems didn't exist, you have to look at the return of investment. If I'm setting up a complicated, perhaps even borderline illegal, tax scheme to avoid taxes of, let's say 500$ a year, am I investing my time wisely? We're talking 1.37$ saved a day... That's not even the overpriced latte at Starbucks. Drop the caffeine habit, and save more...

      So, I'm not really all that sure it's a matter of "too lazy to do the paperwork".

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    22. Re:Nah by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      Nobody is starving just because people with money are using legal tax shelters.

      That claim is almost certainly false.

    23. Re:Nah by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      Not paying your taxes is a crime and must be treated as such. It's really that simple. If you don't like the way the taxes are spent, you can move somewhere else, but then you really have to move, i.e., reside most of the time of the year in the country you've allegedly moved to. Otherwise it's tax fraud, and everybody knows that. The other things you're talking about are also misleading. Social security is among the highest posts in the budget of most countries, and of course massive tax evasion will take away money that would otherwise be spent on it. We're talking about billions of dollars, so yes, people will likely starve if many rich people in a society evade taxes. (Your argument is basically the "yeah but if it's just me who breaks the law, then strictly speaking almost no harm is done" defence, which has always been lame.)

    24. Re:Nah by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It does not follow that if the government had more money that they'd be spending it on social safety nets. It does not matter the government, it simply does not follow.

      In the US; the government is no longer funded by tax revenue..... they just have their partners at the federal reserve (private banking cartel) print out whatever debt they need to fund the government.

      The purpose of the income tax is Enslavement..... that is to bestow (or withold) political benefits and favors (bribes) in the form of tax exemptions, to give some people or companies competitive advantages over others, AND also to take money from the middle class and anyone not dependent on welfare in order to make them financially dependent on the banking industry partners (for loans) by separating these people from their wallet....

    25. Re: Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...or makes little money so having a tax haven is pointless.

      Most people gain nothing from them, either due to limited income or and, the income they do manga to get is already taxed via withholding.

    26. Re:Nah by Maritz · · Score: 1

      They will get destroyed if any link is found.

      No, they won't. They will go as before. Sorry.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    27. Re:Nah by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You drank the Sun and the Daily Fail's Kool-aid. Why be a fool when you can be a hateful fool.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    28. Re:Nah by Gussington · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone who is not doing it, has his own reasons, probably just o lazy to do the paper work or lack of trust in the the lawyers needed in the "destination country".

      Half of the world live on less than $2/day, I'm sure there's probably other reasons than not trusting your lawyer...

    29. Re:Nah by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Non sequitur... It does not follow. Literally.

      It does not follow that if the government had more money that they'd be spending it on social safety nets. It does not matter the government, it simply does not follow. It is not necessarily true that they'd be more inclined to feed the hungry than they would be to make a down payment on yet-another-expensive-defense-project.

      That will still help. Because even expensive defense project money eventually finds it's way into local contractor and employee pockets, and those people buy things with that money and pay taxes, and then the people working in the stores earn more money and also buy things and pay more taxes. Eventually some poor person somewhere gets a slice of bread (even if that person is in China).
      Now you could argue that if the company pays less tax, it can spend more money on projects and the same result applies, but a government is more likely to include public education in it's spend, and ultimately that is the difference between us an the apes. So I prefer the govt gets it's share at some point.

    30. Re:Nah by Xest · · Score: 2

      In many countries, rather than being paid directly you can register as a business, whether that's as a sole trader, or some other type really depends on your country, it's laws, and it's options.

      Whilst it's getting harder in some countries, such as the UK, what you were long able to do is get your employer to pay your business entity, rather than you, and then pay yourself from your company the minimum salary you can get away with that is either tax free, or low tax. The extra money paid to your business will typically then be paid to you via a mechanism such as dividends, which you will not pay standard income tax bands on, but will pay capital gains bands, which are generally lower.

      So for example, in the UK, the tax bands on standard income are roughly as follows:

      £0 - £10,000 = 0% tax
      £10,000 - £42,000 = 20% tax
      £42,000 - £150,000 = 40% tax
      £150,000+ = 45% tax

      So if you were earning say £60k a year, you'd pay 0% on the first £10,000, 20% on the £32,000 between £10,000 and £42,000, and then 40% on the £18,000 between £42,000 and £60,000. That is:

      £0 (0% rate) + £6,400 (20% rate) + £7,200 (40% rate) = £13,600

      (Note: You also pay NI tax in the UK, but I'm keeping it simple here).

      Now, if you'd instead paid via your company using the aforementioned low salary + capital gains combo, the capital gains tax rates were, until Friday I believe roughly:

      £0 - £11,000 = 0% tax
      £11,000+ = 20% tax IF you are paying 40% income tax
      £11,000+ = 10% tax IF you are NOT paying 40% income tax

      So you'd end up paying:

      £0 (0% income tax) + £0 (0% CGT tax allowance) + £3,900 (10% CGT tax) = £3,900 tax.

      This is because you're paying yourself a salary of £10,000 on which no income tax is owed, and then £50,000 in dividends which are owed at only the non-40% CGT rate, because your salary paid to yourself isn't in the 40% bracket, so 10% is owed on this.

      Now, you do typically have other costs from doing this - you have to pay a chartered accountant for example, which narrows the gap, but these costs are typically fixed.

      Again this is a very simplified example, other taxes and costs do come in to play, and countries have been cracking down on this kind of avoidance to varying degrees, but hopefully this illustrates the sort of tactic that has long been abused. Effectively it's only worth it if your salary justifies it - the problem is if you're on a lower salary (say £30k), you may find that by the time you've paid your accountant et. al. that you've not really achieved anything other than wasting an awful lot of your time filling in tax returns - it's not worth the effort unless your salary is high enough for the fixed costs and hassle to disappear into irrelevance compared to the tax saving.

      Again, depending on the country you're in this may not even be possible any more (if it ever was), or the rates may be adjusted to make it not worthwhile - i.e. some countries have more progressive tax rates than the UK, and some have smaller gaps between income and CGT rates. I don't know how the numbers work out in the US to put it in the context of the GP's point.

    31. Re:Nah by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      It's never a zero sum game when the government can legally print all the money it wants. If it were a zero sum game, we'd eventually have to balance a budget and pay down debt... But we don't.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    32. Re:Nah by cardpuncher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it'd be fucking moronic to tax a business on income other than its profit

      No it wouldn't. It would be moronic to tax a business on income other than its profit at the rates that currently apply to profit, but there is a lot to be said for a low rate of tax on turnover:

      • Turnover is less easy to disguise through service and IP payments to parent entities
      • Turnover cannot be reduced by putting money in an overseas bank and inflating your share price on the basis you might be able to repatriate it one day
      • Businesses still use the resources of their host nation (transport, security, education...) whether they are making a profit or not
      • Rent, property taxes, labour costs and raw materials are all payable regardless of profit, so why not tax?
      • Private citizens are not typically taxed on the money they have left over after paying for necessities, but on their total income, so why not corporations?
    33. Re:Nah by jittles · · Score: 1

      The point is, you can incorporate if you want. Hire yourself as a sub-contractor and pay you to go to your day job. It might be worth it, if your tax burden is high enough.

      Or low enough. I did this exact thing in college when I was doing some software development in my free time. Rather than actually pay myself a wage, though, I used a bunch of employee benefit programs to drive the business profit down to 0 and provide my self with non-taxable benefits. The company didn't turn a profit but the IRS lets you keep a hobby business as a tax shelter for long enough that i was able to just dissolve the business without ever running a profit after graduating. I had a paying internship that I used to pay the monthly bills and used my connections there to get the contracting gigs. I didn't feel the slightest bit of guilt doing it, either. I grew up poor but didn't qualify for school grants because of unusual family circumstances that made me ineligible. I do everything I can to avoid paying taxes at the end of the year now, but I don't complain about the money that has already been withheld, I just wish it were being used more appropriately.

    34. Re:Nah by andydread · · Score: 2
      I'll bite....

      it seems that these documents were leaked from a prestigious law firm no? So that being the case it seems that you would be better served to hire them to deal with hiding your money. Now I'm not sure that the people that used this law firm "did the paperwork" themselves. And so there is a financial barrier to entry obviously

      so your arguement falls flat on its face hard

    35. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're about 18-22, right? Student?

      Thought so.

    36. Re:Nah by Eloking · · Score: 2

      Don't give me your "but capitalism" bullshit, capitalism is at the core of corruption in the financial world and regulation IS needed to keep them in order.

      Stopped reading there.

      All you need to do is a quick review of the Quality Of Life of the population's lower and middle class during the last 5000 years to conclude that, while capitalism isn't perfect, it's the best system humanity have come up with so far.

      --
      Elok
    37. Re:Nah by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      If you think the market is anything approaching an idealistic "free," you've been drinking the kool-aid without reading the label.

    38. Re:Nah by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      So, think of the suffering hookers, pimps and blow dealers who aren't getting that additional business because the government is getting end-run and can't tax the hidden money.

      To me, the real problem is that the money is hidden - squirreled away in private control, ready to splash out as a personal power-play whenever the urge strikes. Unlike government programs, these guys already have all the money they need to satisfy their hookers and blow appetites. What these guys do is arbitrarily splash out a big pile of cash when the urge strikes them to own some waterfront property, or a yacht, or jet - they employ a ton of people on a more or less temporary basis and then close their wallet and let everybody go looking for work again. As their numbers decline (per capita), there aren't enough of them to form a stable working economy.

      If you could rely on the rich to spend their money, they wouldn't be a problem. Hell, even if they only spend 1/2 of it before they die, that's enough to keep the wheels spinning for the rest of the world. But, when they go all Steve Jobs and sit on their billions until they die, and worse yet squirrel it away out of sight, that starves the economy, depression style.

    39. Re:Nah by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The problem with tax on profit is Hollywood accounting. When businesses start playing that game, some tax on revenue needs to be levied. States do this with sales tax, but the Feds mostly leave it alone.

    40. Re:Nah by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Really> What percentage of those people receiving benefits are cheats? Go on, provide the statistics.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    41. Re:Nah by jhol13 · · Score: 2

      "Me: Their profit was .3 billion."

      Do you know why their profit was so low? Because (some of them) funneled their profits to the company in tax heaven. How they do that? For example, by buying new logo for 1 billion, taking loan for that witn 20% interest rate, or by licencing for huge value, etc. From the company in the tax heaven.

      Legal? Maybe. Ethical? You answer that.

    42. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It needs to stop. NOW.

      TRUMP, 2016.

    43. Re:Nah by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Regulated capitalism. Look at what happened in the US with the train and oil monopolies and you can see that when one person owns it all, lots of people suffer and they don't care.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    44. Re: Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're equating an elected politician with a welfare cheat? And I thought the US had problems....

    45. Re:Nah by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      The free market is the worst thing. It should be banned universally.

      So wait. You complain about corrupt politicians, and then say the free market should be banned. Which means you would move control of the economy from the corrupt capitalists to the corrupt politicians you were just complaining about.

    46. Re:Nah by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      it'd be fucking moronic to tax a business on income other than its profit.

      Nope, it's called a sales (or consumption) tax and properly applied, it would even the tax burden on everyone by forcing all transactions to pay tax.

      My problem isn't taxes, it's the way they're spent.

      Everyone has those issues, for instance, a large group wouldn't want to support welfare, the war apparatus, unpopular wars, etc. At least that's what I get from the complaints about their taxes and government activity. That's why you don't get to earmark your tax money. However, you can effectively earmark a portion of it via donations, as you get to write it off.

      As for Congress incumbents being re-elected, that's a problem the founding fathers could have addressed by not allowing anyone to serve 2 consecutive terms. Think how much that would have affected politics over the years. All for the better, IMNSHO.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    47. Re:Nah by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I know in the train monopolies the hand of Government was considerable, no one entity can acquire the vast stretches of land without the heavy hand of Government and a good healthy dose of corruption to grease the political wheels. Most people confuse Capitalism with Feudalism.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    48. Re:Nah by Jahta · · Score: 5, Informative

      Really> What percentage of those people receiving benefits are cheats? Go on, provide the statistics.

      Here's a couple. By the UK government's own figures 0.7% of the entire welfare budget is accounted for by fraud. That's less even than the amount due to clerical errors by the Department of Work and Pensions, which comes to 0.9% of the total budget.

      Better yet, there is good evidence that the welfare system is effectively subsidising large companies, like Tesco and fashion chain Next, who are paying employees on or below the poverty line and letting the welfare system pick up the pieces. Of course you will never see wealthy companies (or their wealthy executives and shareholders) called "benefit cheats"; they are merely "optimising their cash flow".

    49. Re:Nah by Cocioc · · Score: 1

      Bad mod.

    50. Re:Nah by capntao · · Score: 1

      Just because an argument is idiotic doesn't mean someone hasn't posed it. He saying he's heard the arguments in conversation, not stating that anyone in particular in this conversation are accused of holding them. "If all dumb arguments are strawmen, then only dumb strawmen will have arguments." yup pretty sure that's how that quote goes

    51. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to 21st Century Statist morality.

      It doesn't matter what the government does with your money, welfare or corruption or simply bombing the shit out of people.

      However, if you dare not pay as much tax as someone else expects you to pay, then you deserve to burn.

      On the upside, at least if Religion goes away, we don't need to fear a lack of warmth from the flames of a good public burning.

    52. Re:Nah by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why anyone would want to tax a corporation anyway, sooner or later the profit is either retained or distributed as a dividend or a draw, then it is taxed at the stockholder's personal rate which is always higher than the Corporate rate anyway; just tax the distributions to foreign national at 25% and be done with it. That would end all of your Evil(tm) Tax Havens.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    53. Re: Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree. The uber-rich and corporations have not paid their fair share of taxes, EVER! That means that you and I carry them. It has cut into my standard of living greatly since the 80's, and unless there is a radical change, my retirement won't even feed me in about 10 years.

    54. Re: Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot Incorporate. My publuc sector contract forbids "concurrent employment".

    55. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > in my country that's not cheap

      When I created my corporation in California (corporations are state, not federal) it cost me $35. I found a lawyer online who did the paperwork for $200. There a $700 yearly fee after that.

      Each state is different, but I know CA is one of the mst expensive.

    56. Re:Nah by budgenator · · Score: 1

      You may be confusing Social Security with the repayment of money and interest the USG borrowed from Social Security.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    57. Re:Nah by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Here it's either a 30k€ for the full blown SA, or something like 12k€ for the SARL (which would be the Ltd). That's the capital you have to raise. You can spend it afterwards, but you need to have it for creation... That's without any lawyer and consulting fees.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    58. Re:Nah by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      $700/year is a significant expense to normal people. You need at least to save $700 in taxes, in order to make that work for you.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    59. Re:Nah by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      In that system, tax effectively becomes the snake that eats itself. If your business isn't instantly profitable, tax can start eating away at your new business, ensuring that you can never quite get into the black. And since most businesses have startup expenses, having a tax become something you pay as a business, no matter what, will start causing weaker businesses to cave in and fail. When those businesses cave in, there will be less tax coming in, so the taxes will have to be raised. And that will cause even more struggling businesses to fail, continuing the cycle.

      Any tax policy which adds to the already high burden of startup expenses or the possibility of having a bad year or two, will cause serious difficulties. If you are only taxing profits, you can at least ensure that the engine keeps running. If you tax a business, irrespective of gains or losses, the government has quite literally become a parasite, which does not care if it kills its host as long as it gets fed.

    60. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > capitalism is responsible for human development

    61. Re:Nah by Methadras · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is the engine of the universe and so of men. You want to hit hard at offshore wealth, then look to the laws that drove them there. Blame it on the collectivist pols, not on capitalism. It's just an innocent bystander of an economic model who's origins date back to the big bang. Don't blame it for the folly of men wanting to keep as much as the can. Also, what foods and products are killing people in a literally horrible, painful slow deaths?

    62. Re:Nah by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, maybe not.

      You're making a huge assumption. There are businesses with offshore accounts, but many who have no such thing. If you treat all businesses like the worst of their kind, you're doing a grave disservice to the ones that you want to foster... those who do pay their taxes properly.

      Yes, some businesses are able to hide or otherwise obscure their real earnings, but others do not. Revenue does not equal profit, especially if you are in an extremely competitive business where you need to spend money on marketing, R&D, and even higher quality production.

      The original post was asserting that you should not make an assumption that someone who brings in huge-sounding revenues can afford some arbitrary percentage of tax based solely on how large the number looks. Anyone who understands business would know that is patently ridiculous as a notion. I would think that a better counter argument to that is that governments are not that stupid and will be able to take more without killing the source, although individuals who post on forums could certainly be that ignorant of how business works.

      Ultimately, I don't believe that the government is entitled to our money. It needs to justify the money it gets in tax. I have no stake in caring whether the rich person evades their taxes using legal loopholes. They're legal. The government itself passed those laws. Are we not to assume that a government with trillions of dollars in budget can't even figure out how to write a tax law that doesn't let corporations get away with this stuff?

      Here's the problem. The government only cares about this when something like this leak comes up. Otherwise, they're happy to scurry behind the walls and do their deals and (re)create those loopholes. I don't feel like I have an "ethical" duty to feed that beast any more than I feel I have a duty to pay higher prices for things that I buy. The rich are rich, and they're going to stay rich. The amount of money they make has little relevance to me.

      What I care about is the fact that the government is consuming ever greater amounts of money, while convincing everyone else that no one can do as good a job as it can in running just about everything, while at the same time, the legal, but "unethical" loopholes that exist are solely the invention of that same government.

      Government is an enabler of the rich, not their sworn enemy. If you want better distribution of income, I would look elsewhere.

    63. Re:Nah by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      so your arguement falls flat on its face hard
      Why does it? I don't get it.

      There is always a financial barrier. Regardless if you found an Ltd in your country or elsewhere. Founding an off shore company costs around $1000 - $2000 depending on country and a yearly fee of roughly $1500, depending on country. And probably costs for an tax accountant, besides the fact that you pay no taxes you have to make a declaration.

      As soon as the taxes you would pay at home exceed roughly $3000 the off shore company is cheaper. And e.g. for authors writing eBooks etc. it is completely legal.

      It is only fishy if you have a business in your country and you write your bills from the offshore company and not from the company doing the actual work. But even then there are plenty of legal constructs how you can transfer the earnings into the offshore company.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    64. Re:Nah by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      When I sold my business, I did donate to the government. Yes, donate. I gave the US Government money, my money, and without force. I specifically was able to donate to NASA. In case your'e curious, you can donate to NASA but you can't earmark the donation for a project. Donations must go to the general operations fund. I was wanting to earmark my donations for educational outreach programs but that's impossible.

      How? I half-assedly looked into this not long ago and was unable to find any information that would suggest this is possible. Is there a particular threshold that must be met? (I'm not wealthy)

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    65. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it'd be fucking moronic to tax a business on income other than its profit."

      O, Really? Then why every single person is taxes on revenue and not the profit? It would be nice to pay the taxes on the sum that is left after all the expenses.
      At the end of the day Family has it's own mandatory expenses:
      1. Rent/Mortgage - Same as business
      2. Food/Water/etc - Lets say salaries in business world
      3. Transportation - Same as business
      4. School/Day Care - Training of the Employees
      5. Medical Expenses, unforeseen repairs etc/etc/etc or should I go on?

    66. Re:Nah by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Tax is evil, anyone who gets round it is good in my book.

    67. Re:Nah by KGIII · · Score: 1

      LOL That would be true IF I was using that as an argument. Read the whole thing there, guy. I know it is long but it kind of helps pull the whole thing together.

      Also, I was stoned as all hell when I wrote that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    68. Re:Nah by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It looks like they've updated a few things.
      http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/di...

      By the way -- I almost missed your reply. I also came across this while making sure that one can donate - you made me wonder if it had changed.
      https://www.reddit.com/r/space...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    69. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is not European socialism making you rich? By increasing costs so no business will pencil in.

    70. Re: Nah by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      Remember how former Gov of Massachusetts and former candidate for the US Presidency was 'discovered' to have 'secret, overseas bank accounts' to 'avoid paying taxes'? Funny thing was, no one noticed that the accounts were 'discovered' from his tax forms - he reported the income on his US tax forms! (Funny how his detractors forgot to mention that...)

    71. Re:Nah by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Before you do anything like that, consult a lawyer and an accountant at the least. It's possible, and generally legal, but you can easily mess things up so that you're in legal trouble or aren't saving money in the long run. You'll probably want the accountant at tax time anyway, and reasonable consultations with lawyers aren't that expensive.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    72. Re:Nah by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you're driving the profit down to zero, you can drive it down to a small positive number. Make a profit enough years (three out of seven?) and the IRS will assume you've got a bona fide business. Make no profit and they might start inquiring about whether you've got a legitimate business or an illegitimate tax dodge.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    73. Re:Nah by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      Pot, kettle, black...

      Where are YOUR facts?

    74. Re:Nah by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Or they could, you know, create a progressive tax, starting from 0% tax rate up to 60 or 70% for the largest and wealthiest corporations.

    75. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because "trusts" are legal entities that can own things and buy things and they do not file tax returns like individuals.

      So some financial instruments can be owned by a trust, and for example, can buy a new car for a beneficiary. The beneficiary doesn't own it, but the trust grants them exclusive and unrestricted use, so it's as good as theirs. In some jurisdictions there are limitations to this (such as "fringe benefits tax" in Australia) but it is still an effective way to operate.

    76. Re:Nah by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      I haven't studied the UK government in detail, but the U.S. government for at least the last 20-30 years has had more tax money (even adjusted for inflation) coming in than ever before, pretty much year after year.

      They've just always managed to spend even more than they had come in every year. The government doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Specifically, a spending on lots of things that don't need to be spent on problem.

      Don't even get me started on how they spend other people's money via regulations (as opposed to actual taxes and appropriations) more and more every year as well. The wonder is how the economy manages to function at all with the year after year ever increasing burden of government on it.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    77. Re:Nah by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      so your arguement falls flat on its face hard
      Why does it? I don't get it.

      Well, if you really think a little harder, the GP has pointed out that the "lawyers" you are talking about and/or trust them to do the work cause the whole leak issue. Thus, you wasted money on them and they couldn't do the job right.

      And $1000 is worth A LOT for many families around the world. Many of them do NOT own a house. Also, many who own a home pay less than $3000 or NONE for their property taxes (in some countries, you pay for the house and land once, and you do NOT pay taxes on the property again). These amounts may be a peanut to you, but they are NOT to many others. Thus, not everybody can do it because they are "too lazy to do the paperwork" as you claimed. Some others who replied to you earlier have already pointed out reasons of why many others can't do. You are using your self as a standard in your answer, and that is a very bad sample.

      Per a link -- http://www.theguardian.com/new... -- which is linked by TFA, "Are all people who use offshore structures crooks?" and the answer is NO because there are other legitimate (non-abuse) reasons to do so. "Are some people who use offshore structures crooks?" and the answer is YES. A simple way to explain it for me is that these some people know how to abuse the system and they do.

    78. Re:Nah by jittles · · Score: 1

      If you're driving the profit down to zero, you can drive it down to a small positive number. Make a profit enough years (three out of seven?) and the IRS will assume you've got a bona fide business. Make no profit and they might start inquiring about whether you've got a legitimate business or an illegitimate tax dodge.

      Oh I had equipment purchases and other things and I turned a small profit my last year of school by liquidating the business assets according to the IRS's own amortization tables. Like I said, it was all side work in addition to a regular job to help pay my expenses during school. The IRS never even blinked. I had a friend whose dad was a CPA that did nothing but corporate taxes and he thought my paperwork was legit. He's the type that wouldn't let one of his clients (or friends) do something shady with his knowledge.

    79. Re:Nah by peektwice · · Score: 2

      Your very first sentence is self-contradictory. People need government welfare programs so they can remain independent. What? If one is dependent on a government welfare program, you are not independent. I stopped reading after that. It just wasn't worth my time to continue to find fallacious assertions such as those.

      --
      Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
    80. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly this.

      Ignorant fucks like to say, "You could do it too if you took the time to read how!" when in fact, the filing fees, etc, all make it only worth while once you have a certain income level... usually much larger than 'merely' $100,000/year before taxes!

    81. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would very much like to hear how you can do this... I too pay taxes and don't mind paying what I pay, but my federal and state taxes add up to about 32%... which is fine with me, but once I retire, I am going to need to reduce my outflow quite a lot...

      You should write a book!

    82. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sold your business and retired... stoned as hell...

      Is this John McAffee?

    83. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If companies pay taxes on profit, why do people pay taxes on their entire income ?

      It would seem more sensible to treat both entities the same. Cost of living, expenses, food, gas, electricity, etc - all of that should not be taxed. This would incentivize people to spend more or buy nicer things. Just like a company may spring for an expensive executive car instead of a low-end Toyota.

    84. Re:Nah by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You know, I would love to buy you a beer sometime if you end up in Maryland. I can be contacted at Gmail if you are ever up here. I would love to chat about how to start a successful business, and financial strategies.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    85. Re:Nah by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Neither yours nor the parents argument makes sense.

      I pointed out: everyone can craft a offshore "tax free" company. And it is not expensive.

      If you want to argue some people are to poor for that: well they don't pay much taxes anyway ... and are not self employed or have no "freelance income" ... so what is your point?

      Obviously a "tax heaven" only makes sense if you have income that you can "generate" there.

      E.g. you give talks and get payed a huge sum per day, the organizations inviting you contract your off shore company, the company gets the money: 100% legal in nearly every jurisdiction.

      Is it morally right? In many circumstances: yes. Why should I suffer because my country taxes different things differently to my disadvantage?

      E.g. freelance in France, if I earn more than EUR 30,000 I need to form an incorporated company, and I'm no longer free lanced but self employed. In the earning range below EUR 40,000 that is a huge loss for me per year. (Not even counting the founding costs that easily are over EUR 10,000) I have to earn 10k more every year and don't even earn a single Euro more just because my income on paper is above 30,000.

      And this is only for "services". If I simply import spices from Arabia and Asia and resell them the income limit where I can not do that anymore is somewhere around 400,000 EUR ... That means: trade in wares I can do freelance without any force to incorporate till I earn half a million, "services" and "consulting" I can't.

      Of course I would place all my "intellectual property stuff" into an offshore company if I was living in France and would work as "freelancer".

      Example above: I'm freelance, but got forced to incorporate into an SA or Ltd. My earnings "before special costs" are EUR 50,000. now I have special costs of EUR 10,000 for tax accountant and other law things that I would not have if I had not incorporated. So my earnings are down to 40k, for that I pay 30% tax, lets say 13K my money after taxes is 27k.

      Now lets assume I could shift 20k into an off shore company. From 50k in sum, I earn now 30k "at home" and get taxed perhaps with 9k and have 21k left. The other 20k I earn in my off shore company. Or in other words: the company earns it. As the company pays no taxes and pays only a yearly "registration fee" of EUR 2000 (estimated) and lawyer fees (1300 EURO) I have 16,700 EUR "saved" in the bank account of said company.

      So bottom line I would "safe" over 10k per year. Probably a bad example, but tax laws (or more precisely employment and corporate law) in many parts of Europe are just that retarded.

      Why a multi millionaire or billionaire needs to be so greedy to avoid paying taxes is beyond me.
      It is also not understandable how "tax breaks" for rich individuals work in the USA. In Europe such things don't exist AFAIK. Only a company can get a tax break.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    86. Re:Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like WalMart in the US

    87. Re:Nah by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      World domination and establishing an everlasting ruling class ain't cheap buddy...

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  10. Carefully composed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    so as little dirt as possible falls on the U.S. Corruption in global sports organizations, corruption in global oil business, and now this as well, and very little of it falls on the U.S. Very suspicious.

    I believe all of these have come to light and under investigation on intentions by the U.S, to wash their hands a bit after the NSA fall-out, and to make the whole world look bad and corrupt, while trying to look like shining white knights themselves.

    1. Re:Carefully composed by onepoint · · Score: 2

      It's real simple, Americans HATE with passion cheaters in sports and once proven without a shadow of a doubt, they are completely banned for mostly life and have no chance of being in the hall of fame

      a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      classic example is Pete Rose

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    2. Re:Carefully composed by Anonymous_Coward_No1 · · Score: 2

      Cheating is the most terrible thing an athlete can do. Best to keep to honest hobbies like beating women and forcing animals to fight to death.

    3. Re:Carefully composed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Juicy information caught by the NSA dragnet has to be used somehow.

    4. Re:Carefully composed by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Animal fighting has been around for a very long time http://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/do... and has become illegal in most places. As towards beating women, I am rather sure it's illegal in the USA.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    5. Re:Carefully composed by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Beating women and animal cruelty are crimes, and should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Cheating is an offense against athletics, and should be dealt with by the appropriate sports organization. Expecting the sports organization to deal with criminal actions seems not to turn out well.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Carefully composed by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Cheating within sports has a long-term effect on the population that enjoys the sport.
      When a cheater is caught and banned, it keeps the population happy and draws them back to participation.
      sometimes it takes an outside court to officiate rulings.

      Now what is real interesting is when teams ( players or organizations ) work within the rules and brend them, while it looks like cheating, it's not.
      great examples of this... Formula 1, Nascar, America's cup... these 3 sports is all about bending the rule or having a new rule made to stop the advantage. Also, cheaters in those 3 sports do get banned, F1 had crash gate a few years back, Nascar bans drivers for drugs and other things, and the AC has had its' share of bannings

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
  11. Shows how the rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    always stand against the people.

  12. Putin's on the list? Not surprising by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Informative

    The man who once ran Putin's campaign to take over all independent media in Russia was found bludgeoned to death in a Washington, D.C. hotel room. He would have been privy to all kinds of insider information, including money Putin has stolen from the Russian people. Take note of the NY Times article where, before an investigation had even begun, the Russia state media was already lying about what happened to Lesin: he had a heart attack.

    But this wasn't the first Russian who had inside knowledge of Putin's thefts, and who met a similar fate. Considering the billions Putin has squirreled away overseas, it's understandable people such as Lesin would need to be liquidated, especially, if the reports are true, they are giving inside information to the U.S. or others.

    This other article from the Guardian appears to be more in depth, detailing how Putin and his oligarchs have amassed personal fortunes worth anywhere from hundreds of millions of dollars to billions of dollars, all stolen via the endemic corruption of Russian business. Bank Rossiya is essentially Putin's personal bank from which he doles out billions to those who please him. To those who fall out of favor, they have to watch their backs or face the same fate as Lesin.

    I'm sure there will be denials about all the facts, but since there is no word for truth in Russian, it's understandable. After all, how can a report about someone's death being from a heart attack come out when the investigation hadn't even begun if you don't want the truth to be known?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re: Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually surprised because considering the power Putin have over Russia, why would he need to put his money in a tax haven? Who in the Russian IRS would dare to go against Putin?

    2. Re:Putin's on the list? Not surprising by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Russia state media was already lying about what happened to Lesin

      Oh I don't know I can easily believe his heat gave out before Putin's thugs were able to beat him to death. Autopsy can only tell us so much in those kinds of situations.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You didn't choose particularly good example with the death of Mr. Lesin in Washington, D.C. The problem is that first, US was saying this:

      In the days after his death on the night of Nov. 4, neither the local police nor federal investigators appeared overly alarmed. One law enforcement official said there were no obvious signs of forced entry or foul play in his hotel room. Mr. Lesin did, however, appear disheveled when he returned to the hotel, according to the video surveillance cameras, the official said.

      After four months they suddenly changed tune and now he died "of blunt force injuries to his head." So either US investigators are so incompetent they can't spot when somebody has been smashed in the head, or there is something else going on...

    4. Re: Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the King of Saudi Arabia is also on the list, and like it is put on Wikipedia: The King of Saudi Arabia is Saudi Arabia's head of state and absolute monarch, so whatever reason he may have to put his money off-shore, it is certainly not to hide it from Saudi Arabia's tax collectors.

    5. Re:Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/panama-papers-money-hidden-offshore

      Though the president’s name does not appear in any of the records, the data reveals a pattern – his friends have earned millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured without his patronage.

    6. Re:Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, from your link:

      http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/sergei-roldugin-the-cellist-who-holds-the-key-to-tracing-putins-hidden-fortune

      In an interview with the Guardian, Belkovsky repeated his claims that Putin owns vast holdings in three Russian oil and gas companies, concealed behind a "non-transparent network of offshore trusts". ...
      a mysterious Swiss-based oil trader, founded by Gennady Timchenko, a friend of the president's, Belkovsky alleges.

      Asked how much Putin was worth, Belkovsky said: "At least $40bn. Maximum we cannot know. I suspect there are some businesses I know nothing about."
      "Putin's name doesn't appear on any shareholders' register, of course.........

      There are 10 times the word "claims" appear in the article.

    7. Re:Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The link is:
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/dec/21/russia.topstories3

    8. Re: Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revolutions happen. Even in Soviet Russia...

    9. Re: Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read this to know who is trolling?
      http://off-guardian.org/2016/04/03/panama-papers-cause-guardian-to-collapse-into-self-parody/

    10. Re:Putin's on the list? Not surprising by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      According to duckduckgo the word is pravda, written as . Google translate says the same.

      How did your comment got tagged as informative?

    11. Re:Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      According to duckduckgo the word is pravda, written as . Google translate says the same.

      It's a joke, son.</FoghornLeghorn>

      The paper of record in Russia is named Pravda, and it's well known to print anything but.

    12. Re:Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I modded so post as AC.
      No, it's not a joke (he really did not understand it, he just copy it, I bet). If it is, it's really bad because he based on misinformation (pointed out by other AC: https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8950081&cid=51834303), when one want to mock others, they must use truth and slightly modify it.
      His comment is base on "claims" and "allegations", not deserved "Informative" vote.

    13. Re:Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to duckduckgo the word is pravda, written as . Google translate says the same.

      It's a joke, son.</FoghornLeghorn>

      The paper of record in Russia is named Pravda, and it's well known to print anything but.

      Well, there is `istina' as well, and no newspaper besmirched this word, as far as I know. Making statements that are too general without knowing the facts is not much better than lying.

    14. Re:Putin's on the list? Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Pravda is a great paper! Layer it under straw, more pravda, and a foot of manure and you have the basis for a great garden!

    15. Re: Putin's on the list? Not surprising by comrade.putin · · Score: 1

      There's always a slight chance that he'll be dethroned.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      So I bet he has money stashed all over the world in case he has to run.
      Look at Yanukovich (Ukraine, was dethroned in 2014). While he had a mansion with rare car collection and a golden coins with his face on it http://politobzor.net/show-136... I'm sure he's still living comfortably from all the stashes he had all over the world.
      That's all it is. A reserve fund in case of uprising.
      None of these leaders are delusional enough to think that they'll be in power forever.

  13. I'm curious by Diac · · Score: 1

    How is this legal? And by that I mean the acquisition and distribution of legal documents. No matter there contents these are legal documents and they are usually protected in most countries so I wonder if any of the papers will be under fire for revealing any details in them.

    1. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's every bit as legal as "the secret intelligence documents given to journalists by Edward Snowden".

      The anarchists are making noise again. Happens every election year.

    2. Re:I'm curious by ledow · · Score: 1

      If it's "of the public interest", then the press are allowed to report it. It's a very low bar.

      However, if this is a leak from one country, pretty much no other country in the world will care about it until legal action comes to their courts. Which it generally won't.

    3. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this legal? And by that I mean the acquisition and distribution of legal documents.

      The acquisition probably wasn't legal. The most likely scenarios are hacking (illegal) or a whistleblower (extremely illegal if it embarrasses anyone in power). But, once the documents are purloined and supplied to the media, there's very little that can be done. In the US and UK, journalists can still report on illegally obtained documents, regardless of where they came from and how. Not sure how that works in Iceland.

  14. Explains cozy relationship between banks and govt by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Each has secrets that can destroy the other.

  15. Question for you: Who isn't on the list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you seen any Americans on the list? No? No surprise either.

    Please note, I don't care for anybody enriching themselves, but this abundant who's who has a glaring abundance of abstentees, too. And then there's the thing with CIA running various banks. No, this isn't to exonerate, but you do have to ask why this gets published. This is far too much data, far too little exposition for the claimed data, and the onslaught of identikit websites in various languages far too organised and cutely timed. This thing smells in multiple layers, and that is something we need to be mindful of. Yes, there will be fall-out and it is probably going to be well-deserved. But leaving it at that is simply not enough. Who's playing what manipulation game here?

  16. Um... we already knew they were doing this by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so I hardly see this as news. At worst It's moderately annoying for the people involved. Also the leakers are probably going to die soon (poor bastards).

    Remember all those reforms that happened after Snowden's leaks? No? That's because there weren't any. So long as social issues exist to divide the working class into easily manageable groups you're not gonna see squat. Let me know when you figure out how to get people to stop caring about Abortion, Gays and guns long enough to care about economics..

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Um... we already knew they were doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA Freedom Act == Reform that occurred after Snowden. Get your facts straight buddy.

    2. Re:Um... we already knew they were doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is nice to have a well documented proof .

  17. Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have an actual link to the papers, or a complete list?

  18. wharez my hash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at least post the torrent hash for the rest of us,
    you insensitive clod!

    CAP === 'crotch'

    1. Re:wharez my hash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  19. Putins money in Panama by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

    That's equals bargain power. Big time!

  20. So are we going to ask for military trials? by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's American documents released, there would've been 50 comments in the first 5 minutes begging for military trials and how these leaks are damaging to the country, how we need to protect our military and their assets. People were crying out for the DoJ to arrest, prosecute, stow away in Guantanamo and even execute the leakers. Now that it's primarily about other countries, I don't see any of that outcry. I don't see any media, mobs or prosecutors demanding for these leakers to go through anything like what Assange, Swartz or Snowden are going through.

    I hope they find a Hillary/Obama/Sanders threesome somewhere in there.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:So are we going to ask for military trials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely they'll find Trump...

    2. Re:So are we going to ask for military trials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, instead you get 50 comments about how it's all an American conspiracy to make the rest of the world look bad. Or maybe the Americans on this forum are just thankful to not be the center of attention for one scandal and are taking some air, letting the rest of discuss amongst ourselves.

    3. Re:So are we going to ask for military trials? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      If it's American documents released, there would've been 50 comments in the first 5 minutes begging for military trials and how these leaks are damaging to the country, how we need to protect our military and their assets. People were crying out for the DoJ to arrest, prosecute, stow away in Guantanamo and even execute the leakers. Now that it's primarily about other countries, I don't see any of that outcry. I don't see any media, mobs or prosecutors demanding for these leakers to go through anything like what Assange, Swartz or Snowden are going through.

      I hope they find a Hillary/Obama/Sanders threesome somewhere in there.

      Bernie Sanders' personal wealth is actually very modest for a long-term US politician. There would be no reason for him to be dealing with international shell companies, because he has far too little money. Most such agencies won't even speak with you unless you have at least $1m in assets, which Bernie does not. He is firmly lumped in with the rest of us average people when it comes to his personal finances.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    4. Re:So are we going to ask for military trials? by wwalker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can totally picture Bernie Sanders having an offshore account. That's a good one!

    5. Re:So are we going to ask for military trials? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      He's a politician, you don't become eligible for POTUS just by being a nice old man.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:So are we going to ask for military trials? by nytes · · Score: 1

      As a U.S.A.ian, I can confidently say that we are just waiting to see which of our politicians are mentioned in those documents so we can start calling for indictments against them. We generally love watching them fall on their asses.

      Clinton seems like a slam-dunk. Sanders, kinda' doubtful. Obama, maybe. I'd give at least one Bush a high likelihood of being in there.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    7. Re:So are we going to ask for military trials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they find a Hillary/Obama/Sanders threesome somewhere in there.

      Year after year, you just keep hoping the universe will finally support your worldview, and year after year, the universe just keeps failing to oblige. Damn! So frustrating, isn't it?

  21. Soros by labnet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Beware,
    This 'event' was 'sponsored' by a Soros funded entity AND there are currently no USA names on the list AND the biggest fingers are pointing at people the USA doesn't like.
    Sounds like a setup.

    --
    46137
    1. Re:Soros by Greyfox · · Score: 2

      Either our corruption laws are good enough, or we're a lot better at hiding our shit. Or maybe you just openly form a corporation here and blatantly set up your tax haven office with 1 guy in Ireland. Perhaps a combination of all three.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  22. Reviewing carefully indeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has the leak been made publicly available? Or is The Guardian keeping it and only choosing to release the data it wants to?

    1. Re:Reviewing carefully indeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  23. Clinton Foundation? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    Is not the Clinton's money, it's a charity organisation and their books are open for inspection..

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Clinton Foundation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      forget the /sarcasm, did we?

    2. Re:Clinton Foundation? by budgenator · · Score: 2

      The Clinton Foundation, It's for Charity, all 15% that doesn't go to "overhead"!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Clinton Foundation? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      According to their financial report:

      https://www.clintonfoundation....

      They had $95 million in payroll, $12 million of which is for management (pg 22). Lower down it lists out specific people's payroll amount, and lists all three Clintons as $0.

      All the prior years are available as well, but I don't particularly have the time to go through them all.

      https://www.clintonfoundation....

      Interesting reading though. It is interesting that Chelsea works 20 hours a week for the foundation, but they don't pay her anything. I would expect her to get some kind of salary, but I guess she has other funding sources.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  24. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obligatory Family Guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqQRi9zpS0o

  25. beyond repair. by Smiddi · · Score: 1

    The system is broken

  26. Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see the list of names are all good friends with the US...

    State sponsored??? Who else would be interested...

    I wonder what they want to deflect from.

  27. Give it ot Wikileaks, please!!! by zedaroca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some journalists are going to publish only part of it, to damage only those that they have interest in hurting. Wikileaks publishes everything, and that's what we need, so that every citizen can go through it and show what's inside.

    People who have access to it, please, leak it all.

    (I was checking the journalists in ICIJ from my country, they are not from very different media outlets. I can see a lot staying hidden and I imagine it will be the same for other countries)

    1. Re:Give it ot Wikileaks, please!!! by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Some journalists are going to publish only part of it, to damage only those that they have interest in hurting. Wikileaks publishes everything, and that's what we need, so that every citizen can go through it and show what's inside.

      People who have access to it, please, leak it all.

      (I was checking the journalists in ICIJ from my country, they are not from very different media outlets. I can see a lot staying hidden and I imagine it will be the same for other countries)

      People NOT on this first tranche list will now get to live in fear of the next release.

      It is a wise strategy, just to get things rolling. Tranches will be released slowly, making absolutely certain that it stays in the headlines for a good, long time. It's the only way to get the public's attention.

  28. Poroshenko vs. Putin by mi · · Score: 0

    President Putin is, supposedly, a "selfless servant of the people", while President Poroshenko was (and remains) the multi-millionaire owner of a very successful company, who financed his own election and pays for his own travels even when on the official business. His wealth was very well-known to voters...

    I'm not sure about the other people on the list, but listing these two as equally suspect of wrongdoing was decidedly bad journalism...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  29. Panama postless by Nostromo21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not so surprisingly, Slashdot is about the only regular site I go to that I've found allowing comments on this leak. Most news sites & others I frequent have them all disabled. Funny that. Journalistic bravery, or self-preservation? :)

    Even less surprisingly, top Russian communist leader corrupt...news at 11.

    In any case, rather than follow the money, just keep en eye out for Mossack Fonseca's execs who are reported suddenly 'missing', or have 'accidents' in the near future. The shitstorm over this hasn't even begun yet. Popcorn time.

    1. Re:Panama postless by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Which communist leader?

      If you're referring to Putin, then he's a lot of things, but none of them is communist.

    2. Re:Panama postless by phorm · · Score: 1

      Honestly, it's probably one of the few places that wouldn't be drowned out by trolls and shills. I saw a ton of those when Russia invaded Ukraine and then again when "rebels" shot down the plane.

    3. Re:Panama postless by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      Except from '75 to '91, but even then only under sufferance. ;)

      Yeah, I mispoke - Russian president of a largely Communist country & all that...

    4. Re:Panama postless by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Again, Russia is many things right now, but none of them are communist, neither in name nor in spirit.

      It's an authoritarian country with a populist regime that uses symbolism and achievements from all periods - Soviet included - to prop its own legitimacy as a worthy successor. But it's most definitely a capitalist regime.

    5. Re:Panama postless by houghi · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I saw it on imgur.com today. http://imgur.com/gallery/j4jhM Also with the focus on Putin and Iceland.

      And there are plenty of news agencies and news papers covering it. Perhaps give them a bit time.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:Panama postless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, a communist with the cross on his chest...retarded yanks.

    7. Re:Panama postless by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      The same could be said of China or North Korea, fair enough.

  30. Getting angry about the wrong thing by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    David Cameron and George Osbourne are removing welfare that WORKING people need in order to work and be independent

    What is wrong with this is not that they are removing it but that working people need welfare in order to work and be independent in the first place. Paying welfare to people who are in work just allows companies to pay lower wages increasing the profits for the fat cats at the top.

    1. Re:Getting angry about the wrong thing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      David Cameron and George Osbourne are removing welfare that WORKING people need in order to work and be independent

      What is wrong with this is not that they are removing it but that working people need welfare in order to work and be independent in the first place. Paying welfare to people who are in work just allows companies to pay lower wages increasing the profits for the fat cats at the top.

      Wal-Mart - family of the fattest cats from Arkansas.

    2. Re:Getting angry about the wrong thing by Methadras · · Score: 2

      Who worked very hard to get there. You think being the fattest cats in america came for free?

    3. Re:Getting angry about the wrong thing by Methadras · · Score: 2

      Welfare, the great shackle of society. Want to keep people pitiless, penniless, and defeated, then put them on a government subsidized free hand out scheme where ambition is killed, apathy and cynicism are promoted.

    4. Re:Getting angry about the wrong thing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who worked very hard to get there. You think being the fattest cats in america came for free?

      Thousands (perhaps millions) of Americans have worked as hard, harder, and much harder than the Wal family over the last 50 years, and have much less to show for it today. Luck in timing, luck in connections, luck in starting from a good place - these are stronger determining factors for Wal level success than "worked very hard" - some hard work is usually also required, but it's not the component most highly correlated with unusual levels of success.

    5. Re:Getting angry about the wrong thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Cameron and George Osbourne are removing welfare that WORKING people need in order to work and be independent

      What is wrong with this is not that they are removing it but that working people need welfare in order to work and be independent in the first place. Paying welfare to people who are in work just allows companies to pay lower wages increasing the profits for the fat cats at the top.

      What the OP was originally trying to say is that welfare gives the working people the means to survive if they lose their job. This reduces the power of employers over those workers as if the employer attempts to abuse the worker, the worker can just quit and still survive. It also helps stabilise low incomes as people will not work for less then what unemployment pays (for the most part).
      These welfare programs also help buffer against short term mass unemployment like what happened during the GFC. The welfare gives a short term buffer by giving those unemployed people money to pump into the economy and that is what keeps the local economy jobs alive.

    6. Re:Getting angry about the wrong thing by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Welfare, the great shackle of society. Want to keep people pitiless, penniless, and defeated, then put them on a government subsidized free hand out scheme where ambition is killed, apathy and cynicism are promoted.

      Yeah, it's evil socialism taking away people's freedom to starve like in the good old days.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Getting angry about the wrong thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like too much taxes being paid imho. If you have to pay welfare to workers while they're working then taxes are WAAY to high.

    8. Re:Getting angry about the wrong thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can agree with that... a good level of cunning, combined with luck and such, have much to do with being successful..... Look at Bill Gates... he made a contract that made IBM-compatible computers get shipped with an OS that was, even in those days, laughable, buggy and cumbersome. As the years went past, the OS became even less stable, and usable. And then his company made a visual programme from which you could launch other programmes... "windows" they called it. And nowadays, you can't even install the bugger with anything less than a 20GB harddrive.

      20 GB just for the Operating System. And it doesn't really do much there either... you can read text-files, look at a few pictures, and browse the web. (That's BEFORE installing anything extra, mind)

      To be able to do that on my Amiga A1200 (in fully working and expanded order, right behind me) I only 20MEGAbyte. And seeing as the Amiga and the iMac (I don't have a Redmond-based computer anymore, thank goodness) share the internet connection, there's not really that much difference in using the 'tinterwebs, either

    9. Re:Getting angry about the wrong thing by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      Sam Walton may have worked hard and found a better merchandising model but he also started out with a decent ethical code. Many of you may not remember that early on "Made in America" was a huge deal at WalMart. There was a time when a Walmart job was a decent gig. The heirs took over and changed it to the global monster we have now.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  31. Brave Sir Robin by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    A guy who once left [grapevine.is] in the middle of a parliamentary session while answering questions because he had a craving for chocolate cake?

    Leaving seems to be a thing with him: he apparently walked out of an interview when they asked him about his off shore accounts. Perhaps there was some more cake on offer.

  32. try going back to an earlier age by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

    It would be fun if letters of marque could be used for people who engage in tax doges. Find the cheat and get a large share, not the relatively small share that the IRS alleges they will give you with a ton of strings attached. Another notion is what a cool book or movie it would be for someone to take over a small tax haven and transfer the assets before the law shows up. You could have fun with that plot line. The sequels could involve various extortion angles while the thieves are on the run. It would be one of the times that people root for the pirates.

    1. Re:try going back to an earlier age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. Oh.. I see what you did there. by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Funny

    You made a reference to the first macaroni machine brought to the US by Thomas Jefferson on his return from Europe in ... 1789.
    Well done Sir.

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. They are. by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Non-ct wait for evidence. CT people simply throw their claim without evidence backing it. That a broken clock is correct twice a day does not mean we should start using it to measure time.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  37. All US politician collude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fights are only the facade. You are as likely to find a clinton/trump/cruz threesome.

  38. Now putin's put the boot in. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Even less surprisingly, top Russian communist leader corrupt...news at 11.

    Nyet tovarich,

    He is now top Russian capitalist leader corrupt.

    All hail glorious march to bright capitalist future.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Now putin's put the boot in. by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      I could almost hear the Ruski musika from Red Heat playing in the background as I read that... :)

  39. easy : they cheat by aepervius · · Score: 5, Informative

    "congress had an overall approval rating of 13%. Yet, 95% of the incumbents retained their seat." Only they don't call it cheating they call it gerrymandering. A nasty little way to make sure the districts are sliced in a way that popular voting does not count, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering "how to steal an election") you probably know that but I wanted to remind all our US friend how they get fucked in the ass by their politician.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:easy : they cheat by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      That is *one* method for doing it. Gerrymandering a district is useful to help solidify a majority's grip, or even to create a new majority, if you're clever enough about controlling state houses. It's nothing new, though. The guy it is named for, Gov. Elbridge Gerry, worked that magic in 1812 for the Democratic-Republican Party (a single name that could probably still be applied to the establishment of both parties if you tried).

      More to the point, it is far from the only method available for doing so. Having captive blocs of voters who are kept on a leash is by far more important. You don't have to worry about them ever voting for the other side, no matter what anyone suggests. Ultimately, it is that sort of impunity that allows a Congress with a 13% approval rating to return 95% incumbents.

      Trump mentions that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still not lose much support. Sounds a little crazy, but at the same time, there are diehards of both party who wouldn't vote for the other side if their candidate ended up as a suspected murderer let alone some other form of lesser criminal. Presumably, I'd hope that most of them just wouldn't vote, but I have the uncomfortable suspicion that some would elect a murderer rather than let the other party win, even through them omitting to vote.

      This is why George Washington warned against the evils of faction and party. Admittedly, it is hard to see how we could have avoided it, but it is clear what the danger is. In the Constantinople of Late Antiquity, they used to have chariot racing teams called literally nothing more than the "Blues" or the "Greens", and even individual parts of the Imperial government were mixed up in the backing of a team with a color name and riots would break out if the wrong team won.

      There are some days I think we should just rename our parties after colors, so at least no one is confused into believing that the party name matters. They're not principled individuals bound together by a specific cause, they're people who are bound together by the desire to win. There are some people inside the parties with real ideals, but invariably they are accepted by the party only insofar as they have something to offer the Party in terms of bringing in voters. They're draft picks for sports teams.

    2. Re:easy : they cheat by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      Sounds a little crazy, but at the same time, there are diehards of both party who wouldn't vote for the other side if their candidate ended up as a suspected murderer let alone some other form of lesser criminal.

      For living proof of this, look at how many discussions of the current Democrat primary race include the phrase, "...assuming she's not indicted..."

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    3. Re:easy : they cheat by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Some forms of Gerrymandering are actually mandated by federal law too!

      The Voting Rights Act amendment of 1982 actually led to minority majority districts that are specifically designed to give minority voters a voice, then are held up as that terrible Gerrymandering boogeyman.

      http://www.jstor.org/stable/79...

      In fact, this is the cause of "the most gerrymandered districts" that the Wall Street Journal talks about here:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Funny how there is so much noise about federally mandated gerrymandering of districts to give minorities a voice in places like North Carolina, but you hear so little about the gerrymandering in Maryland (where I live) that is controlled by Democrats.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  40. Prime minister of Iceland sweating like a pig by jonr · · Score: 1
  41. Idea: No panel changes. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    An idea: The right panel of Slashdot shouldn't change when someone logs in.

  42. Americans & revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is that (for Americans, at least) they compare everything through the glasses of their (our) own revolution, which by revolutionary standards was quite peaceful following the conclusion of the actual revolutionary hostilities. There were sagas and some finding-of-way but most of it was solved (comparatively, not entirely) peacefully with the notable exceptions of external affairs-- esp. British royalty and their possessions. The mass power struggles that resulted in the revolutions in France, Spain, Russia, (Germany / Prussia?,) and many of the freed areas in South & Central America and those that are still ongoing in Africa (post Race for Africa) and Arab Spring are, unfortunately, the more likely norm overall.

    Most general education in the US follows English history until the American revolution and then follows events here. This could also explain Americans lack of awareness with European history starting about the 19th centaury. STEM focus / All Children Left behind is going to make that ignorance much worse for the upcoming workforce (people 20 and below).

  43. "This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things" - EP LXII by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Beware, down that path lie page-widening trolls.
    You might be eaten by Zalgo.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  44. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  45. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. Socialism/Communism for thee and not for me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice that the champions of Marxism are on the list hiding personal fortunes? {cough!} China {cough!}

    The elites around the world who call for wealth redistribution and elimination of "income inequality" are generally the people who do the most to hide their own personal money. People like Soros, Gates, Buffet etc do it with many layers of corporations, offshore subsidiaries, shell corps, and so on which are generally legal (because the lawmakers they buy MAKE this stuff legal). Leaders of corrupt and evil governments are more-likely to use corrupt and evil shell companies in 3rd world countries (since more-proper companies would be more likely to cooperate with less evil governments) and thus Chinese President Xi and others are in the Panama papers.

    Rich people who actually MAKE legitimate stuff often have multiple levels of business to protect against lawyers and navigate tax loopholes .... but those who do not pretend to support wealth redistribution generally do not need these Panama-style shields. Trump, for example, never pretends to be "not rich" and is heavily invested in his real estate empire (possibly so much so that he may lack sufficient liquidity to make it through November) so he's not likely to be a Panama client. On the other side of the political aisle, Bloomberg is also unlikely on the list because while he talks the wealth redistribution game he's probably not in the arms trade or the drug trade and he does not pretend to be poor.

  48. High Entertainment: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    Pass the popcorn! This should be good, though only the tip of the iceberg.

    May there be copycats at the other firms that do this type of business (But make sure you have good encryption and opsec. A lot of these people play very rough.)

  49. Dominant minority by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Organized crime syndicates and Pyramid schemes operating for past ~2000 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority

  50. Panama Papers – IT Security and Pakistan by jhonmurray · · Score: 1

    Panama Papers – IT Security and Pakistan While Politicians around the world and specially in Pakistan are busy “point scoring” against each other on basis of revelations in Mossack Fonseca’s Leaks or popularly known as “Panama Papers”, IT Security and data protection experts have just witnessed one of the worst nightmares of data breach that can affect any company around the world. The staggering, “Panama Papers” data has been attributed to the breach of an e-mail server last year. So much so that Bloomberg says co-founder of Law firm Ramon Fonseca told Panama’s Channel 2 the leaked documents are authentic and were “obtained illegally by hackers”. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which is coordinating the drip-feed release of information from the leak, says there’s 11.5 million documents and 2.6 TB of data, this is the largest data leak of the past several years – bigger than either WikiLeaks in 2010 or the NSA files in 2013. It also seems that the method of extracting data, and potentially therefore the person who leaked it, is different too. While the 2010 and 2013 US military and intelligence leaks were carried out by insiders (Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden respectively), Mossack Fonseca is blaming this leak on an attack on its email servers, according to Spanish news site El Español. The website quoted a statement from the company saying it had opened an investigation after discovering that “unfortunately” it had suffered “an attack on its email server” and that it is taking “all necessary measures to prevent this from happening again”. These include reinforcing its security systems and bringing in specialist consultants to determine exactly what information the “unauthorised persons” have accessed, well for many “ too little too late.” So far, the ICIJ says, 140 politicians and public officials have been revealed as having offshore holdings, more than 214,000 organisations have been identified, along with many billions’ worth of transactions. Reports of corporate data breach continue to pass through news headlines with such frequency that they barely merit a time slot in the evening news. However in 2006, as many as 9,300,000 Americans were victims of identity theft. According to the Better Business Bureau, each victim lost on average more than $6,300 and over 40 hours on the phone with creditors and credit bureaus working to clear their names. Businesses suffer greatly as well, losing a collective $50 million each year as a results of data breach. Pakistan is slowly migrating into the realms of IT and new IT based systems are popping up all over the country that promise to provide the general public with simple services of verifying their mobile sims to more complex systems for land records and taxation records. These systems hold and store Tera bytes of data which includes ID card numbers, name, addresses and other private information of millions of Pakistanis. Now is the need that our IT companies both private and Govt not only focus on developing new systems but also have set standards to ensure data security and privacy. IT race between KP IT board and Punjab IT board (both Govt Organisations) is leading to IT system development on massive scale however to out shine and outdo each other no attention is paid to IT security and data protection. There is no information to what security standards these IT Systems adhere too and then off course there are no external security audits to check system security and data integrity before they are allowed to go “On Line”. This latest data breach in Mossack Fonseca makes it clear that data breaches are a pervasive problem for most organizations in the world today. Yet, despite negative repercussions in terms of cost outlays and reputation diminishment, many companies do not take appropriate steps to prevent data breach, or to prepare for and mitigate the risks whe