'Panama Papers' Group Strikes Again with 'Paradise Papers' (theguardian.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader Freshly Exhumed tipped us off to a new document leak that's just revealed massive tax havens used by the world's most wealthy and powerful people. An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian: The material, which has come from two offshore service providers and the company registries of 19 tax havens, was obtained by the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with partners including the Guardian, the BBC and the New York Times. The project has been called the Paradise Papers.
It's the same group responsible for the Panama Papers, and the Guardian reports that in these 13.4 million new files, journalists have discovered:

• "How Twitter and Facebook received hundreds of millions of dollars in investments that can be traced back to Russian state financial institutions."

• "Aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations, including Nike and Apple."

• "Extensive offshore dealings by Donald Trump's cabinet members, advisers and donors, including substantial payments from a firm co-owned by Vladimir Putin's son-in-law to the shipping group of the US commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross."

• "The tax-avoiding Cayman Islands trust managed by the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau's chief moneyman."

"The publication of this investigation, for which more than 380 journalists have spent a year combing through data that stretches back 70 years, comes at a time of growing global income inequality," reports the Guardian. "Meanwhile, multinational companies are shifting a growing share of profits offshore -- €600 billion in the last year alone -- the leading economist Gabriel Zucman will reveal in a study to be published later this week. "Tax havens are one of the key engines of the rise in global inequality," he said."

Comments

It ain't the money

[Anonymous Coward]

When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard

We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that tax avoidance is proven to work we should all do it. It's irresponsible to pay money when you don't have to. You don't send an extra $100 to your cable provider just because, do you?

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[turkeydance]

agreed. AVOIDance is legal. EVASION is not. i avoid with cash payments. i don't evade, unless TurboTax does.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically true, but still though, there's something to be said lobbying so that the definition of those terms is in your favor. If the wealthy shuffling profits to the Caymans or wherever isn't tax evasion, then the rest of us should be able to do the same thing with our taxes by sticking our W-2s under large rock. Somehow, laws are written such that only one of those, the option afforded the wealthy, is acceptable, and I think that's what people take issue with.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Paradise Pete]

Now that tax avoidance is proven to work we should all do it.

We do. Claim a deduction? That's tax avoidance. It's built into the system. If you don't like a particular avoidance then change the rules.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Swave An deBwoner]

Using cash to avoid payment of taxes is in fact evasion.

And the IRS pays finders fees to folks who assist them in obtaining evidence of the act.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Kim Jong-Un does a lot of heinous things that are perfectly legal too. Kim Jong-Un has a limited domain unto which he can commit such acts and there are a number of nation states that are committed to opposing him. Global corporations have no such limitations.

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[Bruha]

The only tax shelters the non rich have seem to involve giving money to rich people. Hmmmmm

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Austerity Empowers]

Now that tax avoidance is proven to work we should all do it

Tax avoidance has always worked.

It's irresponsible to pay money when you don't have to.

It actually is, or else the rules will never be changed.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[ceoyoyo]

Not doing the right thing unless compelled is pretty much the definition of irresponsibility.

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[ShanghaiBill]

The only tax shelters the non rich have seem to involve giving money to rich people.

Not true at all. You can set up a corporation in the Cayman Islands for $200. Assign it copyrights to all your code. Then pay deductible license fees to use it, into a bank in the Cayman Islands. For living expenses, you take out loans from the corporation, which are not taxable income.

The loopholes were designed by the rich to benefit the rich, but there is nothing to prevent normal people from taking advantage of them. You just need to educate yourself, and put in a little effort.

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[Paradise Pete]

The only tax shelters the non rich have seem to involve giving money to rich people. Hmmmmm

You don't claim any deductions on your taxes? Not even the standard one? If you do, then you're avoiding taxes. No giving of money to rich people is involved.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."

--Judge Learned Hand, Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[gravewax]

Actually using cash to avoid is textbook case of tax evasion as is most definitely not legal.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they pay in cash?

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, you are EVADING with cash payments. with cash payments you still have a legal obligation to include those in your tax filings. My Ex Stepfather is currently being prosecuted for accepting cash payments without reporting it as income and I must say it couldn't happen to a better person :-). Wonder who reported him to the tax authorities! The problem with accepting or using cash payments is you better not ever upset anyone that knows as their is a nice reward for reporting people like your good self.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

And listen as the billionaires laugh at you. When there is no money left in the government's coffers, the billionaires will have their private security guards, private schools and private hospitals to fall back on. What will you have? The billionaires don't even care if the end result costs them more than paying the tax in the first place, as long as everybody else gets put in their place. This isn't about saving money, it is about widening the gap between the overlords and the peasantry to cement their families' legacy at the top of the foodchain.

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you compel someone to evade a tax? It's pretty compelling as it is.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Opportunist]

Wait, how does this "legal" thing come into play? Aren't we told time and again that the corporate leaders and generally wealthy are role models we should aspire to? Do you want to say they aren't what we should copy and try to become?

What are you, a Commie?

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Opportunist]

And they keep increasing the bounty every year. I'm honestly just waiting 'til the bounty is higher than the fine to see how people start cheating on their taxes and then turn themselves in because it makes them pay less.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Opportunist]

FYI, people who break the bones of snitches accept cash.

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[Opportunist]

And of course you have to drop the rest of your decency first. Or at least not shave with a straight razor because you might feel the urge to off the asshole.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well, my cable provider doesn't provide roads, schools, police and fire protection, clean air and water, the rule of law, national defense....shall I go on?

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Assign it copyrights to all your code

And then when investigated, you end up paying all that you would have owed, plus a whole lot more besides because you just engaged in transfer pricing without thinking about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm%27s_length_principle

which means you just signed up to pay as much as your tax authority wants you to, because *they* get to decide how much was paid for those copyrights you transferred, and how much it costs to license them - they can choose any amount. Good luck!

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[schleimkeim]

You should actually do that and write a book about it.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's irresponsible to pay money when you don't have to.

It actually is, or else the rules will never be changed.

This is not enough. People have to know that you are doing it and everyone else is. The biggest problem with this all is that there are Trillions of dollars that are completely hidden from the system that nobody knows about from people who are benefiting from the security provided to them by the western democracies but aren't contributing their fair share.

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[AmiMoJo]

You just need to educate yourself, and put in a little effort.

And become a contractor, don't forget that.

It's different in the US, but in Europe there are significant advantages to being an employee in terms of job security and rights. Contractors get paid more but don't have that security or recourse. Contracting also makes it harder to get financial services because banks look at your mortgage application and see your future income depends on you getting another contract. Also contractors often have to move around more which isn't good if you have a family.

I guess it's not much different from the US in at-will states, but in Europe contracting is not a good option for many people and so these tax-dodging schemes are not available to them.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Austerity Empowers]

This is not enough. People have to know that you are doing it and everyone else is. The biggest problem with this all is that there are Trillions of dollars that are completely hidden from the system that nobody knows about from people who are benefiting from the security provided to them by the western democracies but aren't contributing their fair share.

Yes. But the headlines need to stop insinuating that these people are cheating the system or doing something illegal. The articles need to be very clear: so and so has earned hundreds of billions and has paid $0 in taxes. Does that match our perception of the law's intent? Chances are it does not.

By pitching this as "so and so is cheating hte system" it sounds like a matter for the courts and criminal law, which ties up more of OUR money investigating someone or something that often isn't a crime and will yield very little positive results other than a few more headlines that make people feel good.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[mjwx]

Using cash to avoid payment of taxes is in fact evasion.

And the IRS pays finders fees to folks who assist them in obtaining evidence of the act.

This, what people call tax "avoidance" should really be called tax minimisation, because that's what it is. I prefer to pay cash because it lowers prices (the bank takes a percentage of all credit card transactions) but expect the merchant to meet their tax requirements (and to minimise them as much as they legally can).

However this day and age, its easier to evade tax using the spoilage/breakage loopholes than cash. That way you get the cost of the good that have "spoiled" taken off your gross earnings and still get to sell them (spoilage is hard to disprove).

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

I use cash all the time and I'm not evading my taxes. Every penny of the cash I get paid for rent gets accounted for on my 1040 every year. Tends to bump my tax bill up by a few thousand every year (well, not this year as my renter finally moved out, yey!).

Granted if you want to, there's all sorts of games you can play when renting. For example, rent payments are taxable but getting paid back for utilities is not. That's why the IRS defines a minimum rent amount, and if you charge below that, you're likely to get audited. But the agreement of "you pay for utilities plus this small amount of rent" is a legal way to avoid some taxes so long as the small amount of rent is above the IRS minimum. Granted I always just went with the legally less questionable "split utilities 50-50".

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Ryanrule]

Hmm, a HUGE amount of places in chinatown chicago engage in cash or wechat tax evasion.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[ceoyoyo]

It's always struck me as odd that people think quotes are some kind of evidence. Anyway, here are a few for you:

"Taxes are the lifeblood of government and no taxpayer should be permitted to escape the payment of his just share of the burden of contributing thereto." - Arthur Vanderbilt

"Taxation is the price which civilized communities pay for the opportunity of remaining civilized." - Albert Bushnell Hart

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” - John F. Kennedy

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[nealric]

I am a tax attorney. What you have described will not work. You evidently need to educate yourself a wee bit more and put in a little more effort. Under the scheme you describe, the license fees received by the Cayman company would be Subpart F income, fully taxable in the U.S. to the individual who owns the controlled foreign corporation. You'd also need to worry about IRC Section 367(d) on transferring your intellectual property offshore. Also, although loan receipts are generally not taxable income, there are rules under which a cross-border loan may be re-classed as a dividend or subject to withholding on the interest payments.

International tax is not an area where it is wise to dabble. Advising people do engage in transactions like this without understanding the rules is irresponsible at best.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

It's always struck me as odd that people think quotes are some kind of evidence. Anyway, here are a few for you:

Pay a little closer attention. My quote was from a Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, an opinion that was affirmed by the Supreme Court. In other words, mine represents the official policy of the judiciary. Yours weren't

As Mark Twain would have put it, it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Cro Magnon]

You don't send an extra $100 to your cable provider just because, do you?

Actually, yes, but it's included in the bill. :p

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[GLMDesigns]

Libertarians and free market types do not proclaim business owners are role models in all aspects of their lives. It's the same as athletes - you can point to their effort and dedication in pursuit of their sport - doesn't mean that they are honest and good people in other aspects of their lives.

The rule of law is what counts. Whether you are a business owner or an aspiring immigrant or any other citizen. Don't like the law (taxation or immigration) than push to have it changed. Ignore it and evade it at your own risk.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that tax avoidance is proven to work we should all do it. It's irresponsible to pay money when you don't have to. You don't send an extra $100 to your cable provider just because, do you?

You don't avoid all the taxes you can? I sure as hell do.

I put $18K per year into my 401k, tax free (and my employer matches it with another $9k, for a total of $27K).

I also put another $35K per year into a Roth IRA, via the "megabackdoor Roth" scheme. This money is taxed now, but will not be taxed (principal or interest) when I take it out. (The "megabackdoor" works by making non-deductible, after-tax, contributions to a 401k, which you then "convert" into a Roth account in the 401k. If you're like me and (a) didn't invest enough for retirement when younger, (b) are making enough to be able to afford such a large contribution and (c) have a 401k and a 401k administrator that has set things up to make it possible, you should absolutely take advantage of this option).

I put $6750 per year into my Health Savings Account, tax free.

I put $1500 per year into my Flexible Spending Account, tax free (this one requires careful monitoring; since unspent funds may be lost).

I put ~$20K per year into education savings plans for my kids, tax free. I make too much money to claim deductions for out-of-pocket education expenses, but if I pass the money through an education savings plan (even if I then spend it right away), it's tax free.

I work from home and have a home office, which I will deduct from my taxes. I'll also deduct my mortgage interest, property taxes and anything else I'm eligible for.

I just installed a new, high-efficiency furnace in my house, and I'll get a tax credit for it. I'm going to install solar panels soon, and will get a nice tax credit for them, too.

And so on... I take every deduction or credit I'm eligible for, and actively make decisions about how I manage my money in order to minimize my tax liability, now and in the future.

Of course, all of this doesn't mean I don't pay plenty in tax. I do. Even after all the deductions and credits my net tax bill was still nearly $100K (state and federal), on income of $300K. But it would be a lot higher if I didn't avoid all of the tax I can.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow, laws are written such that only one of those, the option afforded the wealthy, is acceptable, and I think that's what people take issue with.

Not exactly. If everyone could evade taxes easily then there would be new things to take issues with.

I feel that the ones who takes issues with tax evasion are the ones who realize that if those criminals didn't evade their taxes then the taxes could be halved for everyone and the government would still have as much money to work with.
If you make $60000 annually the people evading taxes have essentially stolen $7658 from you since you have to pay their part too.
Even if you wouldn't have that as extra spending money, it could still have been used to subsidize your health care or improve the roads or even getting more competent cops out there.

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[ne1av1cr]

So what tools that the ultra-rich use to avoid and minimize their taxes can the common man use to minimize their taxes? What would a google search for this information even look like that wouldn't return a mass of useless information? How could a person begin educate themselves about this specific topic; are there publications or books?

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[cayenne8]

Kim Jong-Un does a lot of heinous things that are perfectly legal too.

Are you seriously comparing him to someone or some entity that uses the laws as written to try to save their money from the tax man....?

I suppose on your annual forms, you don't take all the deductions available to you? You volunteer to pay more tax than required?

There is a place on the forms to do that you know.....

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[squiggleslash]

This is a textbook example of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Since when did the judiciary have authority on determining what constitutes patriotism? Their role is on determining what is legal and whether certain acts full within or outside of the legal code.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."

--Judge Learned Hand, Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)

Its a shame you only quoted part of the case...which while the quote is used, goes on to say the actions were not legal.

Here is the rest of the decision (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/293/465/case.html):
"Board of Tax Appeals, that body rejected the commissioner's view and upheld that of petitioner. 27 B.T.A. 223. Upon a review of the latter decision, the Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the commissioner and reversed the board, holding that there had been no "reorganization" within the meaning of the statute. 69 F.2d 809. Petitioner applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari, which the government, considering the question one of importance, did not oppose. We granted the writ............ .......In these circumstances, the facts speak for themselves, and are susceptible of but one interpretation. The whole undertaking, though conducted according to the terms of subdivision (B), was in fact an elaborate and devious form of conveyance masquerading as a corporate reorganization, and nothing else. The rule which excludes from consideration the motive of tax avoidance is not pertinent to the situation, because the transaction, upon its face, lies outside the plain intent of the statute. To hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice above reality and to deprive the statutory provision in question of all serious purpose."

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying cash to prevent a paper trail on a taxable transaction is evasion. You're not creating evidence of it, but you still owe tax on the transaction if it was taxable in the first place.

Don't believe me? Ask an accountant.

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[nealric]

Hate to say it, but there's not all that much much a regular W-2 employee can do- certainly nothing using offshore companies that would be beneficial. This is especially the case if you are not itemizing deductions. The thing is, most middle class people don't pay that much federal income tax at the end of the day, so there's just not that much in the way of savings to be had (payroll taxes are another story).

Make sure you are maxing out all of your tax advantaged savings space- Roth IRA, 401k, Health Savings Account, and 529 (if you have children and paying for college). If you are over the income limit for a Roth IRA, you can look into the backdoor Roth, and if you work for a company with a really god 401k plan - the mega backdoor Roth. In some cases, you can get almost $100k annually into investment accounts either tax-free, or with tax-free gains on the investments.

In order to do fancier tax planning you need to be in business of some sort. Real estate investing can be very tax favored. However, it makes little sense to change careers solely for tax purposes. Only do it if you really want to run the business- not because you want to save on taxes.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[EndlessNameless]

I'm honestly just waiting 'til the bounty is higher than the fine to see how people start cheating on their taxes and then turn themselves in because it makes them pay less.

I don't think it will work that way.

The IRS does have programs for people to report themselves though. You can ask them to waive fees/penalties/etc when you true up.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Opportunist]

Well, unfortunately I'm no Billionaire, so I guess I can't buy me some laws to protect my money.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[EndlessNameless]

This, what people call tax "avoidance" should really be called tax minimisation, because that's what it is.

I mean, you could call it that to feel better about yourself if you want. But if you're required to pay tax on a transaction and purposefully don't, then it's tax evasion. It doesn't matter if you reduce the risk of getting caught by paying cash.

I prefer to pay cash because it lowers prices

I pay however is easiest for me. If transaction fees will make or break a merchant, he isn't running his business very well.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that tax avoidance is proven to work we should all do it.

No, we should not.

It's irresponsible to pay money when you don't have to.

You are either confused, trying to confuse the issue, or both.

You don't send an extra $100 to your cable provider just because, do you?

See previous point.

If you are serious, then please fuck off and die in a fire.

If you are joking, then please stop it and then fuck off, without dying in a fire.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[ceoyoyo]

Another reader responded to you. Since I'm the OP, let me reiterate. Your quote is from a court, which renders opinions about what is legally required. Patriotism and civic duty are not limited to legal requirement. Many would in fact define patriotism as starting where basic legal responsibility ends: if you are contributing to your country (time, money, whatever) over and above the minimum to which you are legally compelled, you are acting patriotically.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

people who are snitched on generally aren't in any position after that to pay anyway to do anything.

Re: We should all avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you actually retarded?

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[hai_Priesty]

That's assuming that penalties of getting caught won't rise though.

Re:We should all avoid taxes

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Are you seriously comparing him to someone or some entity that uses the laws as written to try to save their money from the tax man....?

Yes, I am. The harm done by many global corporations is comparable to the harm done by Kim Jong-Un and arguably worse in terms of sheer scale.

I suppose on your annual forms, you don't take all the deductions available to you? You volunteer to pay more tax than required? There is a place on the forms to do that you know.....

You're assuming I live under the same tax regime as you. I don't. My taxes are calculated by the Inland Revenue Service and any overpayments automatically refunded to my bank account. The Inland Revenue Service does a pretty good job of it too. Why would a government ask its citizens to do mundane, repetitive, collations and calculations and risk prosecution for making errors or false claims when computers already do it much better?

Trump was a businessman

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he dealt with taxes, why is this even news.
This stupid site has turned into a snowflake feeding bullshit propaganda outlet.

Re: Trump was a businessman

[Anonymous Coward]

A large number of Americans are too stupid to even understand why this is bad.

Good info that will go nowhere.

Re: Trump was a businessman

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of them will read it on their iPhone and not see the irony.

Re: Trump was a businessman

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean iRony?

Re:Trump was a businessman

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he dealt with taxes, why is this even news.
This stupid site has turned into a snowflake feeding bullshit propaganda outlet.

+100 ... if only I could

Re:Trump was a businessman

[Opportunist]

It's way easier to follow the rules if you're the one making them.

This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[WindBourne]

China charges 20% vat on everything, along with hefty tariffs on Western imports. Mexico charges 17% tariffs and then gives 100 % tax break to most local companies, which includes the vat. Most of Europe has 15-20% vats , combined with corporate taxes, even if companies operate outside of the nation. America needs to do a 0 corporate tax on American made goods/services (start at 50% and raise to 80% by 5 each year ). Keep 35% corporate tax on.foreign goods and apply a 20% vat on everything esp imported goods/parts/services. This will put a stop to this BS.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if the US put hefty tariffs on everything that was imported to "even" the playing field...many of the world's economies would suffer. Taxes aren't a one-size fits all. Ever wonder how many jobs would be eliminated if everything was simplified? Complexity==jobs

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[WindBourne]

where did I suggest that America put on tariffs? I did not. I said that we need to equal the field. What we have now, is insane, and allows nations like CHina to cheat like mad.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

VAT is regressive.

We could do better by not permitting the corporations and rich to write our tax code (and other laws), and then enforce the law.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

This. VAT is regressive: the burden falls disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor who must buy a certain amount of goods in order to survive; the rich man can afford the same goods with much more disposable income left over.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[locater16]

Tariffs are for people that don't have a clue how economics work. Your phone, your food, your car, your clothes are all cheap because you get them from wherever the cheapest source in the world is delivered to you without interference from the government. It doesn't help pay taxes, it never could, and even if it did all the things taxes pay for would cost more to begin with so you'd never get "more" out of that revenue to begin with.

BTW Britain, France, and plenty of other places use VATs and hey look at all the tax avoidance while Apple's profits go to Ireland! You are on top of the Dunning-Kruger effect in economics if you think VATs or Tarrifs have anything to do with tax avoidance or evasion.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you keep pulling numbers from your ass when it's so easy to find facts?
You lazy? Incompetent? Facts dont fit your anti-China agenda?

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[pots]

apply a 20% vat on everything esp imported goods/parts/services

You're describing a universal tariff right here, and we have tons of tariffs already. Ever wonder why cheese is so expensive in the US? 100% tariff on foreign cheese, to "protect" the American cheese industry. The new steel tariffs are killing automobile production in the US and making all the cars that we buy significantly more expensive.

The universal tariff that you're suggesting is a little different than these per-product tariffs, easier to manage and less abusable. So that's something. But it would still raise the cost of goods and make us poorer in aggregate. It's also a regressive tax, just like all consumption taxes.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[WindBourne]

The VAT is about replacing the bulk of the corporate tax, which we are not collecting anyways. It is not a tariff, since a tariff is applied ONLY to imports (mexico's tax is TECHNICALLY a VAT, but then they give a tax break to nearly everything mexican made; that is what is driving production to Mexico).
By simply dropping our corporate taxes on American-made goods/services, and replacing with a VAT, it makes sure that we collect the tax that we would have collected with corporate taxes.
And automobile production has NOTHING to do with tariffs. Hell, Tesla is building in CA and will be doing just fine.
Have you seen the wonderful imported cheese selection at the grocery stores? That is because we do NOT have a tariff on cheese. Bush DID talk about doing it, but that was because Europe was playing games with beef.
Here are a few, and you will notice that it does NOT include cheese other than Roquefort cheese.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[ShanghaiBill]

Imagine if the US put hefty tariffs on everything

VATs are not tariffs. Chinese companies pay VAT on products sold in China, but not on exports. American companies pay income tax on all their sales.

China taxes consumption. America taxes production. So they build, we buy. This is a major reason why we have massive deficits and debts.

Corporate income taxes should be abolished and replaced with a VAT and a border adjustment tax.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Gussington]

You're describing a universal tariff right here, and we have tons of tariffs already.

Yeah but the idea is that it's a lot simpler instead of hundreds of different tariffs/tax/duties/levies, each with their own loophole. With just one it makes audit and compliance a lot easier, hence cheaper, hence greater benefit to the public purse.

The universal tariff that you're suggesting is a little different than these per-product tariffs, easier to manage and less abusable. So that's something. But it would still raise the cost of goods and make us poorer in aggregate.

I've lived in three different countries during the implementation of a VAT/GST so have heard all the FUD before. In each case it never eventuated. Some things went up slightly, some came down, but there's a reason everyone else has implemented it, it's a net gain overall.

It's also a regressive tax, just like all consumption taxes.

And that is good or bad? As above I've heard the FUD, but it's also a simplified tax, which tends to offer the biggest benefit.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada learned its lesson on that. We had 15.75% retail sales tax in one province, and the underground market bloomed. Even today with a typical 13% tax rate, most contractors cut cash only deals.

Your idea works well if you want any "small time" contractors to earn $25,000 a year declared income and $100,000 a year tax free income.

The sales tax quintuples the evasion, because it gives buyers an incentive to go underground. If the majority of the money is for labour, then the 30 - 40% income taxes aren't being paid, either.

Actually, thinking about it, I'm warming up to your idea. I like to use cash and bitcoin. I bet at 20% builders will start to accept bitcoin. Sweeeeeet.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[bestweasel]

"And that is good or bad?"

If the problem is that the tax system is rigged in favour of the rich, then it's bad.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Start with the ridiculous agriculture subsidies that the US government pays its 'built muh own log cabin' farming sector. If you think the largest economy in the world doesn't tip the scales in its own favour, you're naive.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[WindBourne]

It is exactly this reason that I also suggest that with personal taxes, we drop ALL exemptions/deductions/breaks. These are actually used by politicians to manipulate the idiots in the crowd. Instead, we need a simple low progressive tax scale, to which all money obtained is taxed at. U get 100k of wages, u pay Y tax. U get 100 k of lottery, dividends, salaries, inheritance, gains, etc, again you pay Y tax. As to the scale, start it 1% on 'livable wage'. I think a good number on that would be $30k. Then max it out at say 25, maybe 30, % on everything over $1 million, or perhaps $10 million. By doing this, it keeps it fair and more importantly, fuck proof.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[WindBourne]

Vats are not tariffs. They are a regressive tax, but so what? Corporate taxes as applied are as well. The reason is that companies will raise prices to deal with corporate taxes. Worse, because so many large companies cheat, we have not lowered it on those who are honest. So by getting rid of a 35% tax, along with deductions/breaks/exemptions, while keeping 35%tax in place for offshored profits, and doing a VAT, we discourage tax cheating.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

it isn't fair or fuck proof. The problem with a flat tax is it unfairly penalises the risk takers and encourages offshoring, we want to encourage individuals and companies that want to take large risks for large rewards and hence advance things faster not penalise them. With no deductions you can't afford to take those risks as you can't claim the failed investments as deductions against the successful ones. This would see the collapse of any sort of diversity in the movie industry, the death of medical research (or massive increase in prices of goods) and the death of a lot of entrepreneurial startups and basically send the US to the bottom of the pack until it collapses economically

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[gravewax]

The US has an incredibly large array of protectionist tarrifs on many industries, especially agricultural already. The US heavily tries to tilt things in their favour but can't compete on even ground. Should the playing fields be leveled many US industries would collapse overnight.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

most importers to the US would love that, as at the moment the tarrifs in the US are much higher than anywhere else in the world for a lot of goods so this would be a reduction in what they are paying. The US imposes a shit ton of tarrifs to protect inefficient industries and agriculture, what your suggesting would be the death of so many American industries it would be disasterous.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Cederic]

VATs are not tariffs.

Unless, as quoted, you give local companies a 100% tax break.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not aware of a single country where the rich don't pay much more tax than the poor.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting thing about VAT in china.

It is only paid if the customer asks for a receipt.

But, it is also paid in every step of the value chain, if the next step pays VAT, they can claim it from the previous step.

Or so it was explained to me recently by a local anyway.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[pots]

It doesn't include cheese because that's not an exhaustive list. If you read what it says, Bush did not propose applying a tariff where there had not been one previously, he was proposing tripling the tariff from 100% to 300%.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[bingoUV]

They don't want Americans to find out that cheese need not always be yellow. Generations raised watching Tom&Jerry need protection.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[emj]

From the internet about Mexican VAT:

there is also a 0% rate applicable to exports and the local supply of certain goods and services. Sales of ice, fresh water, machinery and raw materials for manufacturers, books, newspapers, magazines by their editors, medicines, as well as the supply of services to eligible manufacturers, are subject to the 0% rate.

That does not seem like a tax break on everything Mexican, far from it. I must say trying to understand tax laws of other countries is not my favorite thing so I do not stand by this.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

You tell 'em, Comrade Wang!

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Boutzev]

Doesn't US states have a sales tax equivalent to VAT ? There is not much difference from the consumer perspective, both are added to the value of the product at sales. The difference with VAT actually is more subtile than it seems. While VAT is paid by all resellers, they all can deduct VAT they paid from the VAT they received from end customers. At the end, both sales tax and VAT is paid by the consumer.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Boutzev]

You don't, VAT is imposed on all goods and is paid by the end customer. There is no distinction between local and foreign production, VAT is applied at the point of sale. When the buyer is a reseller, they can deduct the VAT they paid from the VAT they received, giving the difference to the state. Finally, at one point an end customer buys the product - end customers don't have a VAT number and cannot make deductions, therefore end paying the whole VAT chain. This is somewhat similiar to the US sales tax system.

What you describe are import tarifs, which are meant as an instrument for balancing a country's import and export accounts.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Boutzev]

How is that different from the US sales tax system ? Looks the same to me ?

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Boutzev]

Ireland has VAT too, the tax avoidance has nothing to do with it, it is because of corporate tax, which is another topic.

I am all for the free market, but we have different countries with different standards of living, different tax levels, so companies proffit from these differences. There is no free market in reality, when an average Chinese salary is 1/20th of the average US salary. Companies profit from this, however people cannot.

If the market was really free, the average Chinese guy will be able to come to the US and claim a US salary, which will balance the income around the world - there wont be such a difference in living standards in the first place. The same applies to taxes, goods and services - there are differences between countries and import tarrifs are tools to offset those differences (among other tools).

So, I am all for a free market, but only if it's really free for both companies and people, otherwise it is simply unfair.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[WindBourne]

not even close to accurate.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[WindBourne]

which is why I did not suggest tariffs, esp. since WTO would be a big issue.
BUT, nearly every nation has VATs that replaced their corporate taxes. America did not. As such, we are destroying our own industry.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[AmiMoJo]

The EU has a simple and effective plan: companies pay corporation tax where they do business. If Starbucks sells one of their foul coffees to some unlucky Frenchman, it doesn't matter if they have to pay crippling licencing fees to an Irish parent company and end up losing money. The French tax authority just looks at the profit that the Irish company made on a sale in France, and charges the French subsidiary tax based on that amount.

Companies can either comply or go bust.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Making up shit as usual. You may have been born in the wind, but you quickly fell on your head...
No tariffs on any vehicle components or raw materials, LOL
No tariff on cheese, LOL.
Stop
Making
Shit
Up

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[mjwx]

China charges 20% vat on everything, along with hefty tariffs on Western imports. Mexico charges 17% tariffs and then gives 100 % tax break to most local companies, which includes the vat. Most of Europe has 15-20% vats , combined with corporate taxes, even if companies operate outside of the nation. America needs to do a 0 corporate tax on American made goods/services (start at 50% and raise to 80% by 5 each year ). Keep 35% corporate tax on.foreign goods and apply a 20% vat on everything esp imported goods/parts/services. This will put a stop to this BS.

First off, VAT (Value Added Tax) is not a tariff on imported goods, its a sales tax. In the UK, if I by anything, from a German made car to a Chinese made TV to an entirely British sourced ham sandwich, I pay 20% VAT regardless. This system would be better than the US's current, stupidly complicated per state sales tax system, but the states will never accept it (nor will many Americans). Secondly, And what is the quality of life in China or Mexico? Europe is also a bad example as those nations with a high quality of life is accompanied with high prices (but we can afford them as we can command very high wages).

Protectionism doesn't work. Giving tax incentives doe not work. All you end up with is the Irish situation where corporate taxes are low for HQing in Ireland, but the tax burden is picked up by the average person with high personal taxes.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Boutzev]

Uhm no. VAT doesn't replace corporate taxation. I don't know of any nation that has replaced the latter by VAT. VAT is usually implemented in-line with corporate taxation. It replaces sales tax.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[lexman098]

China taxes consumption. America taxes production. So they build, we buy. This is a major reason why we have massive deficits and debts.

How does government spending have anything to do with the way taxes are calculated? I think you're oversimplifying a wee bit.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Cederic]

What you describe are import tarifs

Well, yes, effectively they are import tariffs. However what I refer to is what WindBourne described as technically VAT with tax breaks for things made in Mexico.

Blame him, not me.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Which country replaced corporate taxes with VAT? Name one...
They replaced sales taxes, usually lots of different rates of sales taxes for various things and made them all a standard rate.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW Britain, France, and plenty of other places use VATs and hey look at all the tax avoidance while Apple's profits go to Ireland!

Which is why the recent commotion on Irish tax decisions concerning Apple. VAT (0-25%) is an EU wide construct for this very reason. Reducing tax avoidance is a never ending process for the governments. If the US would indeed do as the WindBourne suggested, it would only end up with a constant argument with other WTO members. I'm sure the US, even under Trump, wouldn't want to resign from the WTO as well. Nobody shouldn't want to slide into the banana republic tax policies that only fuel conflict and corruption.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate income taxes should be abolished and replaced with a VAT and a border adjustment tax.

VATs are considered regressive.

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to take any arguments against VAT or tariffs seriously when all of the high-growth or high quality of life countries use one or both.

Particularly without any financial data that backs up the claims made, showing the tariffs China has reduces growth in China or the VAT used in the EU specifically hurts the countries doing it proportional to the tax.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

The ITC begs to differ with you. 35% on imported blue vein cheese, for example, and plenty of tariffs on vehicle parts.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

That was only for Roquefort cheese from France. We have a small tariff on imported cheese once they get past a large amount.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[stoatwblr]

'Imagine if the US put hefty tariffs on everything that was imported to "even" the playing field'

It does, in one way or another. The USA is one of the most protectionist markets in the world.

Import tariffs usually hurt the local economy (both consumers and manufacturers supposedly being protected) - consumers via higher prices and the "protected" manufacturers due to lack of competition enabling them to charge what the local market will bear whilst producing goods of generally poorer quality than if subjected to real competitoion - making them uncompetitive in other markets (if you sell in other markets below your local price then it's dumping and the WTO will slap a few hefty tariffs on to your exports until it stops. If you're selling expensive substandard goods then noone will buy them)

The countries and exporters that the local market is supposedly being "protected from" usually don't care much as they have hundreds of other markets to sell in .

(Anti-dumping tariffs are different to protectionism ones as they're levied via WTO rules by all WTO participants. Protectionist tariffs can also result in WTO sanctions unless done via the backdoor of "safety regulations", etc etc. )

This is why the USA car market's safety rules are different to the UN rules used everywhere else in the world, but it's a two-edged sword as it makes US carmakers uncompetitive outside the USA.

The Chicken Tax is another good example of protectionism via the back door. If the USA directly imposed a protectionist tariff on imported minivans/minibuses with the stated purpose of shielding local manufacturers from competition then US exports of the same would be subject to WTO sanction. But even whilst escaping WTO sanction, the tax has rendered US minivans unsaleable in the rest of the world due to higher price and lower quality than competing products (and "foreign" makers responded to the protectionism by setting up local assembly plants, neatly bypassing the import taxes)

Another example of US protectionism is the tariffs erected against New Zealand beef and wool products - which have been completely unsubsidised since 1985. By the early 1990s, they substantially undercut US farmers due to efficient farming and transport practices. In response, the USA imposed anti-dumping tariffs in the mid 1990s with no evidence whatsoever that dumping was actually taking place (the argument was "it's so cheap it must be dumping and that's all the evidence we need" - the WTO disagreed). The unilateral trade barriers went to the WTO, where it still is (these kinds of disputes frequently take decades to untangle). In the meantime american beef farmers get to sell to their local captive market, whilst pricing themselves out of export markets 20 times (or more) larger than the domestic one (This is another example of how tariffs backfire. US rice farmers are in the process of making the same mistake and US corn farmers managed the same stunt back in the 1970s)

Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[stoatwblr]

"hey look at all the tax avoidance while Apple's profits go to Ireland!"

Yes, but VAT means that governments are collecting a decent chunk of income that Apple can't avoid paying and it's also a tax that for the most part the rich can't avoid easily.

Interestingly it's been postulated that with a suitably high VAT, there would be no need for company or income tax. The flipside of that is that higher VATs would hurt the lower income deciles extremely badly. You could fix this with a universal allowance or by requiring that companies pay enough to their workers that they don't need government assistance (which are more or less unregistered backdoor government subsidies for the businesses concerned)

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[david_thornley]

Corporate income taxes are paid out of profits, so they can't affect the prices charged. The price charged to maximize profit is exactly the same as the price charged to maximize profit * 0.6. Similarly, corporate income taxes can't make a business unprofitable.

Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax

[HornWumpus]

I don't much care for American cheese. But I'll take it all day long over casu marzu.

And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[AmazingRuss]

Fuck all.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anubis IV]

I seem to recall the Prime Minister of India being ousted as a result of the Panama Papers. So, not exactly nothing.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[alvinrod]

Well the journalist who uncovered it died when her vehicle blew up. I'm pretty sure she didn't drive a Pinto so I'm a little but suspicious about the whole ordeal, but it was a pretty big result for her.

More seriously though, the problem is that they're all dirty. Republicans, Democrats, everyone. That makes it easy for any side to ignore the misdeeds of their own and sling mud at the other side. That's why nothing really comes of it, because they all know that they're all dirty, so they can't really go after each other in any serious manner.

Even more seriously though, what the fuck did everyone expect. No one wants to pay high taxes. The people that make most of the money realize how much the government sucks at doing most (not all, just most) of things it tries to do, and the people who are wealthy and okay with high taxes because they can accomplish some good would probably be just as well (if not better) off taking their money and doing it themselves. If you want companies to pay taxes, apply market principles to this situation as well and assume that people will shop around for better deals. Lower tax rates to make it less profitable for companies to try to off shore profits and they'll gladly take the path of least resistance.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Pseudonym]

The previous President of Iceland would beg to differ.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know they all look alike ;-) but it was actually the PM of Pakistan in this case. A couple of famous film stars were smacked around by the Indian media for offshoring a bunch of their investments. The panama papers also took down Iceland's PM and had Cameron suffering from foot-in-mouth disease for a while.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Aggressive" tax avoidance and offshore dealings aren't necessarily illegal.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[dohzer]

Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean you can't do something about it.
Like, for instance, making it illegal.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anubis IV]

Thanks for the correction, rude as it may have been. I actually did search for it, but finding nothing (since I was apparently barking up the wrong tree with my searches), I went ahead and posted a quick response, figuring that if I was mistaken someone would be along to correct me. So, again, thank you for the correction.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I said the same thing, and paid the ultimate price...

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[whoever57]

Here you go:
http://bfy.tw/Erz6

Perhaps you should not have included "India" in your searches?

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Lower tax rates to make it less profitable for companies to try to off shore profits and they'll gladly take the path of least resistance.

Lower them to what? People keep saying that, but nobody offers a number. Where's that sweet spot that gets the government more money in taxes and saves these large corporations money? Does it even exist? Advocates simply assume that it must, but nobody seems to care to know.

Re: And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 so angry that large corporations loopholes last forever but the self employed professionals lost all their loopholes a long time ago and the middle class and poor just don't get any

Flat tax on gross corporate income is what we need, no deductions, no credits. It can be 10% to 25%. But whatever the number everyone pays the same, small and big and especially the biggest businesses. If that makes their exploitative business model not work, fuck them they can close up shop and someone else will figure it out.

Re: And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

And sales made internationally by a subsidiary? If it's a shell company for collecting royalties or sales revenue, we want those taxes here. But we can't go around investigating everyone's shell companies. The rules need to be simple, like... don't do that. Just make them responsible for paying taxes here on all international revenues, no exceptions. If they need to setup a subsidiary in country X to legit make sales there, that's a cost of doing business. Or they can make an agreement with a native country X company for distribution there and pay taxes on the wholesale revenue.

We need to make it so they can't have it both ways - tax money needs to come back into the USA because this is where the profits are enjoyed. If any of those billionaires think they can get a better deal somewhere else let them go. They need us more than we need them.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Gussington]

Lower them to what? People keep saying that, but nobody offers a number. Where's that sweet spot that gets the government more money in taxes and saves these large corporations money? Does it even exist? Advocates simply assume that it must, but nobody seems to care to know.

Like smaller government. Non-one seems to offer up a suitable number of smallness, but it sounds great to shout that phrase around at every opportunity.
Apparently if the Government was reduced to 1 person, and tax was 0.1%, we'd all be better off somehow...

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[GerryGilmore]

" Lower tax rates to make it less profitable for companies to try to off shore profits and they'll gladly take the path of least resistance." So, basically, turn America into even more of a tax haven than it already is? Winning!

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck all.

Right! I got a safe haven for you who would contribute to the global rise in inequality (Guantanamo) because you're nothing but a terrorist. You have made a world, through your greed for more paper and digits, where people are scared to lose their job, don't expect to retire, fiduciary responsibility is treated in higher regard than patriotism, or environmentalism, and force people to reinvent the wheel over and over again because of proprietary information. Fuck capitalism. Fuck competition. Certain things we should work together on (the economy). Certain things we should not (soccer).

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like most things we little people used to be able to do? Perfectly fine one day then "illegal! illegal! go to prison!" the next. That's how the internet died.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even more seriously though, what the fuck did everyone expect. No one wants to pay high taxes. The people that make most of the money realize how much the government sucks at doing most (not all, just most) of things it tries to do, and the people who are wealthy and okay with high taxes because they can accomplish some good would probably be just as well (if not better) off taking their money and doing it themselves.

I don't know. The government seems to be doing a great job at borrowing money to funnel into weapon manufacturers and then inventing wars to waste those weapons. The F-35 is just one of many other great examples of this. Meanwhile, wealthy individuals can't well funnel money into weapons production like that because we, oddly, probably wouldn't tolerate their inevitable rise to warlords. In all seriousness, the role of the US Federal Government today is job creator for weapon vendors and food/medicine/health care production with a massive side job of buying off the elderly. There's no way the wealthy could afford that even if they wanted to given the US Government can't even.

If you want companies to pay taxes, apply market principles to this situation as well and assume that people will shop around for better deals. Lower tax rates to make it less profitable for companies to try to off shore profits and they'll gladly take the path of least resistance.

Honestly, if you want companies to pay taxes you make it so they can't avoid paying taxes. Imagine if employers weren't mandated to withhold income for income, social security, etc for employees. You think the solution at that point would be to just keep lowering taxes until eventually people choose to accurately report their income? The obvious problem isn't the tax rate. It's the obvious unwillingness of lawmakers to enforce it.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government sucks at everything because those same rich assholes are busy corrupting it so they can continue to stay richer than other people. Example, the tax software companies successfully prevented the federal government from releasing it's own software for everyone to freely use. They actively lobby to keep the tax code complex so that people will buy their software. Like the anti-virus industry, the tax industry shouldn't need to exist. Look at ISP lawsuits against local governments as more examples or how many industries are able to bribe congress critters into gutting the funding for their regulators so the companies can get away with ignoring the laws.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[gravewax]

depends on your definition of fuck all, in Australia it resulted in a few billion dollars in additional tax revenue post investigations. Our Tax authority is also keen to get their hands on these papers for a similiar investigation.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem I have with this is it wasn't a single journalist that investigated it, she wasn't even the head of it, she was simply the lead in malta, it was several hundred journalists for the panama papers, same thing for this. No single person can comb through that much information. she was likely killed for a lot of her other focus on corruption in malta rather than anything to do with the panama papers.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

she was reporting on a lot more than just the panama papers, she was an avid reporter against corruption and the Mafia and the mafia had killed many others in the same fashion. She also wasn't the one that uncovered the panama papers, she was just the lead on it in malta. It is possible it was related to her reporting on that, but far more likely it was related to her work on mafia and gang corruption.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[TheRaven64]

In theory, the threshold for elected officials is a bit higher than 'not actually breaking the law', it also includes not doing things that too many of the population consider to be unacceptable.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Opportunist]

They not only look alike, they're also very obviously fully fungible. Or did you notice any kind of difference when this one got tossed out and that one posed as the drop-in replacement?

Granted, that has little to do with being Indian or Pakistani, that's more a feature of politician. That's also why political murder has gone out of fashion. Why bother putting a hole in this sock puppet, it's the same as the sock puppet replacing it.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Opportunist]

Not if you buy a law or two first, no.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this silly post modded 4 informative ? It was a Pakistani PM. Or is it because most Americans couldnt find either on a map ?

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Identification from this overall, is useless unless it results in action or consequences for illegal behavior.

I can't speak to the illegal behavior, since the amount of data being disseminated here is staggering, but in terms of action, unless it affects those in power, and who have appropriate motivation to do something about it, by political pressure or other, this will amount to little change beyond the 'focusing of light', on otherwise information that was preferred to stay in the dark..

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[AmiMoJo]

They badly damaged Marine Le Pen, the far-right candidate in France's last election.

The Icelandic government lead by Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson was brought down by information in those leaks.

We learned a lot about how Russia's leaders and their friends hide wealth and funnel it covertly overseas, to interfere in the democratic processes of other nations.

The investigation of FIFA was aided by the release, resulting in raids on their offices in Switzerland. A lot of the bribery that was going on was only proven by these papers becoming available.

Ukraine's government fell apart due to the leaks.

The impeachment of Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff was in no small part due to the Panama Papers, and several members of her government and the Brazilian state have been prosecuted.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head, but Wikipeida has a really, really long list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anubis IV]

Darned if I know. It’s pretty clear I got it wrong, and the corrections are immediately under my post, so I don’t know why mine keeps getting modded up. I’d retract it if I could.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-one seems to offer up a suitable number of smallness

The US constitution (with the 10th amendment actually observed) is the "suitable number of smallness" that these folks are talking about. This is easily learned by conversing with them. I get the impression that you don't really want to know what small government advocates think. Conversation, by the way, includes more listening and less hyperbole.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazis were alt-left socialists though. The fake news keeps implying they were alt-right.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

So just because it's legal for the Democratic Party to run primaries undemocratically... doesn't mean Hillary doesn't belong in jail. Women deserve equal jail.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Well the journalist who uncovered it died when her vehicle blew up.

Citation needed.

The information source (reportedly a male) remains anonymous and there's no evidence of him being killed, and the German journalist (Bastian Obermayer) who received the original tip is still alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

So, I think you're thinking of a different journalist who was recently in the news for being killed by car bomb...

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anubis IV]

Please stop modding my comment up. I was incorrect in saying it was India (it was actually Pakistan), so please mod my comment down and mod up one of the responses that corrects me.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that was their point.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, but that assumes the populace is paying attention.

That doesn't really apply in amurica.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[smugfunt]

The impeachment of Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff was in no small part due to the Panama Papers

Wikipedia says: "Rousseff herself is not mentioned in the papers" and "No politicians from Rousseff's party were mentioned in the leaks."

The Panama Papers' link with the coup in Brazil was that the corrupt politicians had to get rid of Rousseff in order to stop the investigations against them.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[stoatwblr]

"No one wants to pay high taxes."

The level of evasion taking place means that many companies and the richest deciles are paying NO TAX AT ALL.

If they paid 20-35% like everyone else then there would be a lot less anger, but it's always the rich merchants who are the least disposed to paying their way in society. Sociopathy is a major trademark of such people.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[stoatwblr]

In 1985, New Zealand simplified its personal and business taxation rates to 24%/33% and 32% respectively, abolishing personal rates of up to 70% (in 6 steps) and substantially lowering its GROSS taxation income. At the same time it dropped in a GST(VAT) of 10% and eliminated a wide range of sales taxes between 10-40%

Except that it didn't.

It also stripped down the tax laws and removed thousands of exemptions and loopholes that had accumulated over the years. The tax return went down from 25 pages to 4.

As a result, even though tas rates were lower on paper, gross income actually ended up rising a little. More importantly, over the next decade the country was able to lay off more than 1/3 of its tax department staff as they were no longer needed. NET income rose a lot.

Then the neolibs got in, shafted the poor and squandered the money whilst adding lots of tax cuts for all their friends.

My point being that what matters to a government is the NET tax income. Taxes can be lowered if the costs of collection and compliance are simultaneously lowered - and the effect of less taxation is an increase in consumer confidence/spending resulting in greater turnover and more income for the government.

Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the U.S. the answer is easy. Reduce the federal government to the level specified in the Constitution. Basically get government out of everything but the areas specifically allotted to it by the Constitution. That basically means defense, international treaties and immigration. Interstate commerce interference should be limited to ensuring states don't put tariffs on goods from other states.
Then reduce taxes to the amount necessary to support the above activities. A couple of hundred thousand people (including the members of a defensive military) should be able to do that.
State and local government size and taxes are up to them. You want your state government to have all kinds of entitlement programs and social safety nets? Go for it. Your taxes will be set to support that.

Re:Another wing of the White House under indictmen

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody cares. He's gonna be reelected anyway, along with over 95% of congress. The country's fallen! And it can't get up!

Isn't this what we expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

People like to keep their money. Isn't this the norm?

Re:Isn't this what we expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi norm!

And?

[darth dickinson]

Wake me when we will actually do something about it.

Re:And?

[sit1963nz]

Yep, the US is more likely to adopt gun control than have a system where the wealthy actually behave honestly.

Re:And?

[whyyisthissohard]

This is supposed to wake you up to do something. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO DO SOMETHING.

Brainless drones.

Re:And?

[sexconker]

Gun control will happen when the wealthy fear for their lives.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

If people like you stopped sleeping and started doing we could fix things.

Re:And?

[lessthan]

It's not Christian.

Re:And?

[Type44Q]

When the wealthy fear for their lives, they will indeed be controlling their guns.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is when it happened in Europe too: the aristocrats did not care about people owning weapons until they were such a quality that rebellions could not be easily crushed.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Gun control will happen when the wealthy fear for their lives.

Why would they give up their guns when they fear that people will kill them?

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't happen because the wealthy have guns and people to carry them for them.

Re:Meanwhile

[Stomper_Stoddard]

Are we still talking about Hillary Clinton? I kind of feel like she is not important anymore. I mean, she is not the president and never will be. We have already poured something like 100 million dollars into investigating her and Bill Clinton and all we got out of it was a lie about a blowjob. Seems to me we should just let it go, let her retire and move on with it already.

Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[hyades1]

So tell us again, please, how Hillary Clinton ties into a story documenting Russia's financial strings on current high-ranking members of the US government.

We'll wait...

Re:Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Kohath]

Unless you want every election to be a choice between criminal A and criminal B, you have to stop covering for your side's criminal when your side's criminal gets caught. If people hadn't covered for the Clintons so many times over so many years, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to collude to fix the primary election.

Re:Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, dude. She won the primary election because more people voted for her. Give it up already.

Nobody cares.

Re:Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you want every election to be a choice between criminal A and criminal B, you have to stop covering for your side's criminal when your side's criminal gets caught.

He says without a trace of irony in a thread about Trump's shady financial ties.

Re: Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're ok with ballot box stuffing because all that matters is someone gets the most vites not how they get it.

Thanks, that helps explains how we got here. People with morals or even honor do care, clearly you have neither.

Re: Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[lessthan]

Ballot box stuffing doesn't occur. If it did, there would be a problem, but multiple studies, on multiple elections, have found little evidence of voter fraud. So don't go haring off attacking people, when you can't even prove that there is a problem.

Re:Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Then convict her and throw her in jail. Her indiscretions are no excuse to ignore these revelations. You seem to be doing exactly what you're arguing against, covering for one rich and powerful side while extolling the other. Your post is a smoke screen.

Re: Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude was getting confused with Russia. Don't be mad, he's had a long shift.

Re:Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Kohath]

Then convict her and throw her in jail.

She seems to be immune to that. Too bad there's no 3rd choice between Presidential candidate and prisoner. If there were, we could just decide that someone who repeatedly barely escapes indictment for crimes should remain outside the government.

Her indiscretions are no excuse to ignore these revelations. You seem to be doing exactly what you're arguing against, covering for one rich and powerful side while extolling the other. Your post is a smoke screen.

And what's revealed behind the smoke then? Billionaire deal-makers had business dealings with foreigners? They tried to minimize tax expenses? Russians sometimes ship things with shipping companies? Not all bank accounts reside within the US?

Are there credible allegations of any criminal behavior at all?

Re:Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[dave420]

Maybe she's immune because the trumped-up accusations against her are just that - trumped up?

Re:Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Anonymous Coward]

She seems to be immune to that.

Has it occurred to you at all that the reason she cannot be convicted is that she isn't guilty of anything? Just because some loudmouth keeps calling her 'crooked' doesn't mean she is.

Re:Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Baron_Yam]

You're covering for your side's criminal now, by trying to deflect public interest from Trump's Russian ties onto the other side's most visible figurehead.

Re:Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Baron_Yam]

You should have capitalized that last 'trumped'.

Re: Another Trump apologist bites the dust

[Hodr]

I have been saying the exact same thing for months!
-Ajit

380 journalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they going to release the source material to the public so that we can find anything that the 380 journalists "accidentally" missed or forgot to report in their zeal to be completely unbiased and impartial while on the payroll of major news organizations?

Re:380 journalists

[ljw1004]

Are they going to release the source material to the public so that we can find anything that the 380 journalists "accidentally" missed or forgot to report in their zeal to be completely unbiased and impartial while on the payroll of major news organizations?

Last time they did release a complete searchable database of the leak - https://panamapapers.icij.org/..., https://offshoreleaks.icij.org... - so there's every reason to believe they'll do the same this time.

Indeed, last time after the full release there was no indication that the journalists had failed to be unbiased or impartial in their initial reporting. So there's zero grounds for you to be suspicious this time.

Re:380 journalists

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember being extremely annoyed that they didn't release the papers up front. I am glad thought that eventually they did.

Re:380 journalists

[Anonymous Coward]

releasing them all up front would have unfairly benefited sections of the media that hadn't spent months and months invested in reading and collecting information worthy of publishing, many sections would have just rushed in to grab the large headline cases for little invested effort. While I think the press are pretty sleazy in a lot they do this is quite reasonable, some time allows for unrushed well researched books, articles, magazines etc to be published based on their expended effort before everyone else gets a free ride.

Re:380 journalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time they did release a complete searchable database of the leak

According to their own word or that of an independent source?

Re:380 journalists

[Anonymous Coward]

They claimed that it was the largest leak of all time and the database is 44.6 MB.
They either lied about the size of the leak or didn't publish everything. There are no transactions, almost nothing to find out. Also, no documents, just a database they prepared for publishing.

While I do believe the data they are releasing is probably true, it's no Wikileaks. I don't believe it's the full thing.

Re:Meanwhile

[Baron_Yam]

Hmm. I wonder why you'd want to look at the proven liar wielding power over the the person without power he keeps pointing to as a distraction?

Are you Russian or stupid?

& what will media attention will liberal media

[Anonymous Coward]

like twitter and facy mc facebook face get about their coonections to Russia? None. If you go back far enough we all pay Putin. It's called global finance, folks

Re:Meanwhile

[Kohath]

Also, you may not have heard that a sitting US Senator is currently on trial for bribery, and it looks like it will go to jury deliberations soon. If he's convicted, he will be forced from the Senate and his seat will be filled by the Governor, who is of the opposite party. Guess that's not news -- not something you're supposed to know about -- either.

FAKE NEWS!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Clinton who MUST be locked up! LOCK HER UP! Nothing else matters!

TRUMP powa!

Obligatory

[pedz]

I've fallen and I can't get up

Is there a Life Alert for countries?

Re:Obligatory

[sexconker]

http://fallenrave.ytmnd.com/

Re: Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:Obligatory

[Baleet]

Like the white male who gunned down 26 people as they attended church yesterday? Like the white male who gunned down 50+ at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas a while back. Looks like the caucasians are racking up a pretty good score themselves.

Re:Obligatory

[Dr_Terminus]

Wow, first YTMND link I've seen in years - didn't realize that site was still around! Brings back memories of hours spent on that site...

Re:Obligatory

[sexconker]

http://random.ytmnsfw.com/ wheeeeeeeeee

Re: Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatâ(TM)s just a typical weekend in Chicago.

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that she's ready to move out of the spotlight?

Re:the real dirty birds

[antifoidulus]

You really need to stop listening to Alex Jones, here is a pro tip: He is deluding you so he can fleece your dumb gullible ass.

Everybody is dirty.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we have good government if every fucking official is dirty? Clinton, Podesta, Trumps crew, all filthy. Whatâ(TM)s a responsible citizen who wants reasonable government to do?

Re: the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

The Rep control both houses and the white house. But yet I keep reading how the US is supposidely run by leftist liberals and that they somehow keep the right from doing reforms.

Explain how that works.

Failing to report income is evasion. 401k/FSA is

[raymorris]

> i avoid with cash payments. i don't evade, unless TurboTax does.

You're not just guilty of evasion, but the *felony* variety.
If you accept cash payments and intentionally don't file a return showing those payments, that's misdemeanor tax evasion. When you file a return which says "total income... Under penalty of perjury" which you know does not accurately include those cash payments, that's FELONY tax evasion.

https://www.irs.gov/compliance...

Common tax avoidance methods include 401k, IRA, HSA, and FSA.

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary is irrelevant. Nobody gives a shit.

Meanwhile, yet another member of President Traitor's cabinet is found to be directly connected to Russia.

Re:the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, Trump idiots and Alex Jones idiots are the exact same idiots, and debating them prima facie would be similarly idiotic.

It's a crooked world

[boudie2]

I'll bet when the Richard Bransons and Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts of the world get together and talk about their grand schemes they laugh at the little people who make it all possible.

Re:It's a crooked world

[Baron_Yam]

>when the Richard Bransons and Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts of the world get together and talk about their grand schemes they laugh at the little people who make it all possible

This is what really gets me - there is NO way that any of those people are providing value to civilization that is proportionate to the wealth they control. No human being could possibly be worth so much to us collectively that they should make more in a few minutes than another productive human can possibly make in a lifetime.

And I think ultimately that is what we should be aiming for when we talk about correcting wealth inequity - your personal cost/benefit to the planet should more or less balance out to zero under ideal circumstances. Obviously that's not possible even in a world where you could accurately calculate that, because most of us have at least an ounce of compassion and wouldn't write off the disabled, the sick, the elderly, or the merely redundant (this last one becoming more of a problem as human labour becomes less economically important). And communism sure as hell didn't work out well for anyone in the long run.

However, I think it's a good general target we should be aiming for while trying to figure out something better than the current system. You should get a share of benefits from the system more or less equivalent to the share of value you put in.

Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I say, "From each according to their will and society's need, to each according to their contribution and personal need". Not quite as catchy, though.

Re:It's a crooked world

[boudie2]

Years ago I was working in a gas station in a relatively affluent part of Vancouver. One day I said to my boss that pumping gas into Mercedes and Porsches and Ferraris making minimum wage made me feel like a piece of shit. His words to me were "You're not even a piece of shit. You're just a little piece of a big piece of shit." Never liked that guy.

Re:the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

what fucking point is your genius brain talking about? the panama papers were released when Obama was president. It resulted in the english PM blabbering incoherently about his tax avoidance plan, the icelandic premier resigning and the PM of Pakistan getting indicted and forced to resign. Here it is for you reading pleasure: https://panamapapers.icij.org/
But then you are an Alex Jones turd and want to believe in the paint chips you eat for lunch rather than do even a basic google search. Educate yourself - its not everyone else's job; else we get orange bufoons running countries.

Trudeau's 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

When Trudeau wants to tax the 1%, he makes sure to avoid taxing them because he hates paying taxes. Instead, he (and various provincial Liberals) defines the 1% as those with salaried income of $100,000CND or more. That way, trust-fund babies like him can tax-dodge and con the Left just the way they like by running high deficits with nothing to show for them.

Re: Trudeau's 1%

[Brockmire]

That makes no sense.

Re: Trudeau's 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

Males total sense when you realize that his election platform was built on killing income splitting and instituting tax deals for the moderately wealthy.

I worked it out and the sweet spot of about $72k income a year where one person earns and the other doesn't (income splitting) went away and become one of the worst positions to be in. Tax wise, the ones that got the best break become couples earning about $90k each, or $180k household.

Trudeau did a great job of selling a platform that hurt single below average family income families and gave tax breaks to families most consider rich in Canada. Canadians are too lazy to do the math and believed him.

Re: Trudeau's 1%

[superwiz]

Well, if Trust Fund is a separate entity which is not owned by its beneficiary, then it makes sense.

Don't conflate tax avoidance with tax dodging

[Anonymous Coward]

Some Americans pay NO Federal Income taxes: "out of 171.3 million tax units this year, 77.5 million—or 45.3 percent—won’t pay income tax. ... Just because people don’t pay federal income tax doesn’t mean they don’t pay any tax. In fact, nearly everyone pays something. Three-fifths of those who don’t owe income tax work and thus pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. And almost everyone pays state and local sales taxes," -Forbes

Most of those filing single or jointly who make enough to qualify for Federal Income Tax payments use commercial software to MAXIMIZE their deductions, which is perfectly legal and a wise thing to do. That isn't tax dodging, it is tax avoidance. Only stupid people pay more taxes than they have to. The way the tax laws were written by Congress and additional "regulations" added by the IRS, those who earn more money have more deductions and write-offs to claim, all resulting in less taxes. If you want the "rich" to pay more taxes tell Congress to change the rates. Good luck with that if you expect them to increase taxes on themselves or the people that fund their campaigns.

It is also ludicrous to claim that the bottom 20% pay more taxes than the top. How can the bottom 20% pay more income tax if the bottom 40-45% pay NO taxes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimates-of-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax/#163cf0a261cb

Re:Don't conflate tax avoidance with tax dodging

[Whatsisname]

It is also ludicrous to claim that the bottom 20% pay more taxes than the top. How can the bottom 20% pay more income tax if the bottom 40-45% pay NO taxes.

Did you really write that? You included in your own post a quote indicating the "NO taxes" claim is horseshit.

Re:Don't conflate tax avoidance with tax dodging

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Most of those filing single or jointly who make enough to qualify for Federal Income Tax payments use commercial software to MAXIMIZE their deductions, which is perfectly legal and a wise thing to do. That isn't tax dodging, it is tax avoidance. Only stupid people pay more taxes than they have to.

"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."

--Judge Learned Hand, Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess it's not news.

Precisely. It's not news. It's old news, but it's not news.

The most obvious difference between the stories is that one is a specific allegation by a direct witness, to deals that undermine democracy. The other is some innuendo that requires you to make up the other 80% of the story yourself.

No. The most obvious difference is that one is a perfectly legal activity that is an active design of the party system--which is precisely why so many people have rallied against the two party system--and the other is somewhere between legal and illegal activities. Both really do undermine our democracy in different ways--as obviously those tax havens and "tax avoidance" is a major part of where all the current crooked system comes from and then we have the actual crooks.

So, really, they're two sides of the same coin. This just happens to be the specific records of people vs the general calling of "moneyed elite". It's not any more of real news than the DNC collusion, really. It's just current, specific evidence.

Clinton as President and war with Russia

[thesjaakspoiler]

Or did I miss the real purpose of these revelations?

Obligatory cherry picking.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Find everything that could be linked in any way, however vague, indirect, and ridicluous, to Russia or its vassals.
2. Don't speak about anything, that could be linked in any way, however relevant, direct and serious, to the US or its vassals.
3. If anyone complains, he must be loving Putin and hating Murica. It can't be that he does it precisely because he wants to protect the US from the agenda of those doing the hate-mongering, and precisely because they are of the same kind as Putin.

(And since I've seen fucking morons, managing to STILL "misunderstand" that to mean I like Putin or something... PROTIP: “precisely because they are of the same kind as Putin" implies that I think Putin is an evil piece of shit, and am additionally saying he is, because he is like those hate-mongerers. But I'm sure somebody will find an excuse to spin doctor this around anyway. --.-- ... Or just conveniently ignore this half the comment.)

Re:Obligatory cherry picking.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Find everything that could be linked in any way, however vague, indirect, and ridicluous, to Russia .. blaha ... blaah . what about ... blah .. whataboutism ...blah .. whataboutery.

These people are US allies and US citizens. Having investments in the US would be a positive thing, if done openly and/or honestly. Obviously investing in companies which belong to Putin's family is a bit different and it's not cherry picking to point it out. Same as if a Russian invested in companies which attacked Russia. If you can show that Putin has an investment in Lockheed or Northrup-Grumman then you might have a point and tat should be brought up, however I doubt he's as stupid or treacherous.

Re:Meanwhile

[epine]

The DNC colluded with the Hillary campaign to fix the primary election process so Hillary would win [cnbc.com]. But no Slashdot story on that, because ...? Guess it's not news for nerds.

Gee, that was hard.

You do realize that Slashdot is not a general news site, and that when Trump gets covered as president he actually wields a great deal of power over science and technology?

If Trump has been covered with no connection to science or technology, those articles weren't news for nerds, either.

That said, it's hard not to cover one of the most powerful men in the world when he's addicted to 0400 rage tweets. File under: geek, what hast thou wrought (with this new and appalling social media bullshit).

trump drained the swamp alright...

[Anonymous Coward]

and filled it with raw sewage.

Yeah!

[DontBeAMoran]

"The tax-avoiding Cayman Islands trust managed by the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau's chief moneyman."

Yeah! Canada!

Wait... what?

Re:Yeah!

[FeelGood314]

Stephen Bronfman and a trust fund he is involved with appear to have avoided Canadian, US and Israeli taxes. I love how the media, instead of starting with his name mention that he is a friend and head of election fund raising for the Canadian prime minister. I'll wait and find out if the anyone in the governing party knew about it. If they have I expect resignations at the very least.

Re:Yeah!

[fatwilbur]

The average Canadian Liberal voter probably has this for a thought process reading through the events of the summary in order:
1. Oh no! Those slimeballs!
2. Aha! Trump is mentioned! More proof he's basically the worst person ever!!
3. (Finally reading the line you quote) Well, this is just a rogue individual and doesn't reflect on how awesome Trudeau is.

Re:Yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying people should get a free pass to ignore anything involving Trump and his cabinet members because of some strawman you invented?

Do you not also notice the complete lack of concern from Trump supporters about what is revealed in these leaks? I bet many are still having trouble figuring out if they are for or against anonymous sources and other mental gymnastics.

Re:Yeah!

[Goglu]

The average Canadian Liberal voter should already be aware of the slimeball Trudeau is, given his Finance Miniter's woes of the last few weeks, as well as his rejection of a motion that was meant for the Canadian parliament to act on tax evasion (motion M-42, presented by Gabriel Ste-Marie).

The best part: You'll be called a Trump lover.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because thinking beyond extreme rigid one-dimensional binary extremes is VERBOTEN.
So it can't be, that you may think both parties are shit and work for the same group.

And those who don't, will use the old "is this still news" tactic.
Where something utterly fucked-up happened, it got reported, nobody did fuck-all, so it got repeated until the fuckers finally get it into their thick skulls, and they then call it not relevant anymore on the grounds that it is old. Yeah, it's fucked-up and YET it is old! That makes it even worse!!

Re:the real dirty birds

[antifoidulus]

Sorry I hurt your feelings little snowflake, but where exactly did you determine I'm an "SJW". I didn't refute the point because there was nothing to refute dispshit. You can't go making broad claims with 0 evidence to support it other than some guy who sells you fraudulent products says it's true. I know you don't like being told you are a dumbass snowflake, but you are a dumbass snowflake who sucks Jones' dick because you are too stupid to realize he is raping you.

Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course Trump gropes pussies because he's a real gentleman and not at all a harrassing shithole.

Re: Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Just wow. This is classic deflection.

If supporters of political parties actually had some morals and held their candidates to their defined standard of morals we likely wouldn't be in this. Clinton was/is a habitual sexual harraser, the Dems looked the other way, worse yet they continued to support him.

At that point grabbing a crotch or 2 is hardly with talking about. The latter isn't good either, but the slippery slope allows people to ignore the sins of their own because "look at what they did"...where "they" is everyone else.

Re:Tit for tat

[Opportunist]

And that says what exactly about his qualities as a president?

I agree, it's despicable. But considering that we've recently had presidents that started wars over nothing, greenlit torture and prisoner camps where people are kept for however long we fucking please without process and under questionable conditions that again border on torture, had people killed on little more than "I think he might be a terrorist" and so on... I can only say if THAT is what you have to say against Trump, well, we've had worse.

Difference between avoid and evade

[buss_error]

Aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations, including Nike and Apple.

It is legal in the US to avoid paying a tax. It is not legal to evade a tax, however.
What's the difference?

Burger King was "bought" by Horton's, a Canadian company, and licenses back all the Burger King IP from Horton. If this consumes effectively most of the profit, Burger King can legally not pay US taxes on it's income. (Previous statement is opinion, assuming facts I have not verified.) This is why I don't go to Burger King anymore.

It is my understanding that Apple does that as well, but again, I have not verified it to be factual, and is thus to be considered opinion. This is why I don't purchase Apple products.

This would appear to be completely allowed within the US tax code. (I am not a tax professional, if you want to do this, you should purchase an opinion from a licensed tax professional.)

What is not legal is for company Blah to use false accounting to evade a tax. That will get you an orange jumpsuit and those fetching chrome bracelets.

Re:Difference between avoid and evade

[Anonymous Coward]

Aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations, including Nike and Apple.

It is legal in the US to avoid paying a tax. It is not legal to evade a tax, however.
What's the difference?

Burger King was "bought" by Horton's, a Canadian company, and licenses back all the Burger King IP from Horton. If this consumes effectively most of the profit, Burger King can legally not pay US taxes on it's income. (Previous statement is opinion, assuming facts I have not verified.) This is why I don't go to Burger King anymore.

It is my understanding that Apple does that as well, but again, I have not verified it to be factual, and is thus to be considered opinion. This is why I don't purchase Apple products.

This would appear to be completely allowed within the US tax code. (I am not a tax professional, if you want to do this, you should purchase an opinion from a licensed tax professional.)

What is not legal is for company Blah to use false accounting to evade a tax. That will get you an orange jumpsuit and those fetching chrome bracelets.

I would have thought a company actively avoiding tax would be a reason to prefer them, not avoid them. Why would you support the further empowerment of the United States government?

Nobody cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do and I don't even live there.

Clinton rigged the primaries to freeze out Sanders. He should have won. And then he would have been elected President.

Clinton's actions ensured Trump's victory. And for that she should be pilloried forever.

Re:Nobody cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how the Primaries work in the USA? How do you rig primaries? They are run by the states. The parties decide how the results are counted (proportional or winner-take-all) but can't decide who votes or when or where. Clinton won 3 million more votes in the primaries than Sanders. That's not superdelegates or party run caucases, that's actual voters marking a ballot.

Re:Nobody cares?

[sexconker]

Do you know how the Primaries work in the USA? How do you rig primaries? They are run by the states.

Voting is run by the states. The candidates and campaigns and everything else including and plain ol' deciding whether or not to go along with the vote, is run by the party. Why do you think Hillary "won" all those instances where they kicked out Bernie supporters or pretended not to hear them when anything came up that was to be decided by voice?

The DNC rigged their primaries for Hillary. I don't agree with Bernie's crazy views or policy, but I would have voted for him over Trump, and he would have won the election over Trump.

The DNC torpedoed itself in its attempt to stage a coronation for Hillary. The fact that any voter is loyal to the DNC after that is worrying. It's almost a one party system now.

Re:Nobody cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you described is a caucus, not a primary election. Bernie actually did well in the caucuses where fired up supporters rule. In a regular primary you go down to your polling place and vote your secret ballot, just like in the general election. That's how I did it in Texas and that's how Clinton got 3 million more votes than Sanders.

Re:Nobody cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you described ("kicked out Bernie supporters or pretended not to hear them") is a caucus, not a primary election. Some states have caucuses, some have primaries which are run just like any other election -- secret ballot, no discussions or voice votes. Bernie actually did quite did well in the caucuses, Clinton did much better in the primaries which bring out more "regular people" rather than the fired up activists. Over 3 million votes better than Sanders in the primaries.

Re:Nobody cares?

[ScentCone]

The party that organizes the primaries and the debates and provides back-end infrastructure and party-wide support (say, through the DNC) is - when putting its thumb on the scale in the favor of the politician that has just literally bought control of the party's committee - rigging things.

Re:Nobody cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Registration deadlines for one. Once people found out there was someone actually worth voting for in the primaries (Sanders), the registration deadline for voting had already passed in many cases.

Re:Nobody cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The primaries weren't close and definitely weren't close enough to rig.

2) If you believe that Bernie would have won based on polling, keep in mind that he wasn't the victim of a massive smear campaign that would have occurred and changed poll numbers had he been the candidate.

He might have won, but your confidence is excessive. And I do hope that the DNC behaves better in the future.

Re:Nobody cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure Clinton's near-total control of the DNC had nothing to do with an overwhelming majority of superdelegates endorsing her in advance of any primaries. Not rigged at all.

Re:Nobody cares?

[david_thornley]

Sanders had a better reputation because he hadn't been seriously attacked. If nominated, he would have been considerably more vulnerable to Republican campaigning than Clinton was. I don't think he would have done better.

Clinton won the nomination because the average Democrat preferred her over Sanders.

Re:Nobody cares?

[david_thornley]

Except that Sanders did better in caucus states than in primary states. Delegates that were chosen by free election by people in general were more likely to be pro-Clinton than delegates produced by the party apparatus.

Re:Nobody cares?

[HornWumpus]

Wouldn't have taken a smear campaign. Just the facts would have done the job.

Re:Nobody cares?

[HornWumpus]

And the other viable candidates stepped back to give the bitch her turn.

Re:Nobody cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Sanders was running, millions of Democratic voters would have gone to the polls instead of staying home. That alone would have made all the difference.

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

The DNC colluded with the Hillary campaign to fix the primary election process so Hillary would win [cnbc.com]. But no Slashdot story on that, because ...? Guess it's not news.

See, that's not news, because it's not. It was pretty much a known thing last year before the general election. We all knew Clinton pulls some strings to shaft Bernie. This isn't some new revelation. But you see, Clinton isn't the one who's sitting in the Oval Office, Trump is. And he's a bad bad guy and everyone around him seems to be guilty of some crime or another. FFS, that's one of the biggest reasons Clinton didn't win, everyone knew she was shady and did shady things to get the nomination.

And for a guy who professes innocence and ignorance at every turn in this investigation, Trump sure acts like a guy who's guilty. He minimizes anything shady related to him and his campaign, and tries (along with his pals at Fox) to get people to pay attention to something that doesn't even matter: Clinton. She's done, finished, she'll never be in public service again. Ever. She simply doesn't matter, no one cares, cuz there's nothing to care about.

So yeah, Clinton plenty of shady, but your horse, Trump, is even worse and he's the guy at the top now. So shady. We didn't really have good choices in Nov 2016, super shady lady married to an ex-President whom was impeached, or shady misogynist dictator-inspired reality TV star guy that likes to say 'You're fired.' Gawd, it wasn't a choice.

It was more like picking your method of execution.. Firing squad or hangin'? Meh. (AC cuz moderated in other threads.)

What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pravda?

Yes, people avoid paying taxes they don't have to pay. It's not a revelation.

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

5 seconds with a search engine shows no fewer than 10 stories on it. For example:
https://politics.slashdot.org/...

Meanwhile, the US tax payer is shoveling money into the furnace to pay for President Trump to stay at Trump branded properties. This from a man that said "I'll be so busy, I won't have time to play golf." While he plays golf just about every weekend.

Do I think Senator Sanders would be a better president than Donald Trump? Yes. Heck, Donald Duck would be better than President Trump.
However, I believe that Sectary Clinton would have been a better President than either of them. Note, that I don't say she would have been a "good" president, only better than the others.

Democracy means you get a vote. It doesn't mean you get much of a choice.

Re:& what will media attention will liberal me

[Kaenneth]

Take the popular game H1Z1, made by Daybreak games, owned by 'Columbus Nova', owned by... a Russian mining and petroleum company?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Meanwhile

[Brockmire]

No it fucking wasn't. It wasn't unwelcomed by Lewinsky. It was concensual between two adults behind closed doors and was no one's fucking business besides theirs. "Maureen Dowd has it right when she tells us, "It is Ms. Lewinsky who comes across as the red-blooded predator, wailing to her girl friends that the President wouldn't go all the way. It is Mr. Clinton who behaves more like a teen-age girl trying to protect her virginity, insisting on holding back, reluctant to even remove any clothes, even pushing Ms. Lewinsky away and pushing up her slipping bra strap...emotionally upset about it...(saying) I'm trying to be good..." "

Whataboutism

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep making posts that says something like "how come X isn't being reported" or "how come nobody talks about Y" or "howcome X isn't news" and in virtually every case it's trivial to find X, Y, abd Z talked about extensively in the MSM.

If you want shit talked about here and you don't see it being posted, then post it or STFO.

Lies

[DevNull127]

It was 100% consensual. (Dude, there's a difference between "sex" and "sexual harassment.")

According to Bill Clinton, there's even a difference between sex and getting a blow job.....

Re:Lies

[Opportunist]

Didn't you get the memo? If she says afterwards that she regrets it, it's rape!

Re:Lies

[HornWumpus]

'You grab them by the pussy and they let you...' also 100% consensual.

And?: Fiscal waste.

[Anonymous Coward]

We should bring all that money home so our government can waste it.

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

There's way, WAY more to that story than just the primary being rigged for Hillary Clinton. There's still aspects breaking.

There's Obama treating the DNC as his campaign slush fund and draining it to the point it was millions in debt.
There's Hillary Clinton's campaign effectively owning the DNC since 2015, well before the primaries began.
There's Hillary Clinton draining the DNC of funds for local races, funneling all funds into her campaign.
There was allegedly an attempt to extract cash from Bernie Sanders' campaign.
Donna Brazile said she had enough knowledge of how Seth Rich died that she feared for her own life.

There's just so much to that story that there hasn't been a good summary of exactly what happened, and new parts keep breaking as more and more comes out.

"The DNC rigged the primary for Hillary Clinton" is the tip of the iceberg and the story just keeps growing day by day. I hope there will be some major exposes in a few months, but then again, the DNC also runs the main stream media, so - quite probably not.

Hmmm.

[msauve]

"...multinational companies are shifting a growing share of profits offshore -- â600 billion in the last year alone..."

So what, exactly, is "offshore" for a multinational? The moon? Another planet?

Re:Hmmm.

[Whatsisname]

Offshore is a small shithole country that does virtually nothing but run a bank with low taxes, but is recognized as a country.

The Cook islands, despite only having 17 thousand people, likely stores many hundreds of millions to several billions worth of US dollars, despite requiring several million/year in foreign aid to keep its residents at a reasonable standard of living.

An estimated 1 teradollars is hiding around places like that.

Re:Hmmm.

[msauve]

So? The only use for money is to spend it. And the world banks try to maintain a minimum level of inflation, for bad reasons. So whatever is stored in such counties is completely and utterly useless until it's moved to a first world country to be spent, diminished by the cost of inflation.

Re:Hmmm.

[superwiz]

Offshore is a small shithole country that does virtually nothing but run a bank with low taxes, but is recognized as a country.

Sort of like Delaware is recognized as a state?

Re:Hmmm.

[gravewax]

not quite, you don't move it to those countries and just leave it their, you then LOAN it to your subsidiaries at an interest rate that offsets any application taxes earned in the country you are loaning too, so they stay in full control of and full use of the money while at the same time milking additional tax benefits.

Re:the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange how Wikileaks never manages to find anything on the Russians.

Re:Meanwhile

[phantomfive]

Because it's old news. Anyone who looked at the emails already knew it (see this for example). We don't need to rehash the story here, especially when there's no tech angle. The only real news is that the DNC is turning away from the Clintons.

Besides that, Hillary is kind of old news now. Her power over world events is quickly waning. So it's hardly news that matters anymore.

Re: the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Trudeau is the poster child for globalism and leftism what do you want more

Re:the real dirty birds

[PopeRatzo]

Strange how they don't dig up even bigger dirt during the globlists' cabals like the Bushes, Clintons and O.

Judging from the size and scope of Donald Trump & Family's dealings with shady overseas "investors" and "stakeholders", it seems like he may be the real globalist among recent presidents. I mean, he's surrounded himself with people who either straight up lie (Sessions, etc) or have terrible memories (Sessions, etc) when it comes to meetings with oligarchs, Russian con men, pro-Kremlin "lawyers", etc.

Has there been a single member of the Trump cabinet who does NOT have some shady business deal or a history of meetings with Russians? Maybe Betsy DeVos, but her brother is a war criminal who can't set foot in the United States and maybe Rick Perry, who may be the stupidest man ever to set foot in the White House.

Paula Jones did not consent even if Monica did...

[Anonymous Coward]

Consensual for whom? Paula Jones didn't want sex, even if Monica Lewinsky did. Bill lied in court about Monica to cover up the harassment of Paula when he was sued. Monica isn't the one who sued him!

Bill Clinton was held in contempt of court for perjury. As part of that, he surrendered his license to practice law for 5 years. He also settled out of court with Paula during the appeals because of how his lies had been uncovered. This led to articles of impeachment, which failed, but that's purely a political vote in the House of Representatives.

You guys always divert things to Monica & the BJ when the problem is what Bill did to Paula.

Re: the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

The logic is actually pretty simple. US isn't run by top level leadership. It's run by the more local ones. And those are far easier to pressure with media and activists - two parts that are solidly left and far left in the current age in US.

The ship analogy is pretty good here. As an individual part of the ship, it's not the captain or the XO that runs you. It's the engineering crewman, followed by his head. And their decisions can often be in direct opposition to what captain would want them to do. And in case of ships, this is often a good thing as captains tend to be fairly clueless in specific details of mechanical quirks of certain sections of the ship for example, but also an awful one as it's often easy to take shortcuts top people don't know about and cause catastrophic damage as people above don't know about specific issues before making orders that assume that rank and file engineering crewman did exactly as was instructed).

I recommend the recently released report on Fitzgerald's and McCain's collision as a good example of Officer of the Deck and his officers and crewmen being ignorant of each others specific orders and expected procedures leading to outcome that is the diametric opposite of what OOD (and Captain who stands over him) intended.

Re:the real dirty birds

[Camel Pilot]

Oh where are my mod points...

Commies 4 Communism

[Anonymous Coward]

You: How very Kremlin

Also you: See you at the gallows

=

Cognitive dissonance, much?

Re:Meanwhile

[squiggleslash]

My God! Thank you for posting this, this kinda of news could bring down President Clinton, bringing a swift end to her control over the US Government! Why I bet by the time you read this she won't be President!

Re:the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh where are my mod points...

I got you covered.

Re: Another wing of the White House under indictme

[Anonymous Coward]

I delight in your suffering!

MAGA!

Your comment makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually think Julian Assange, who is an Australian, living in the U.K., inside the Ecuadorian embassy under Ecuadorian asylum, and has been holed up there without being able to leave for nearly five years, and is a world-famous individual, is a Russian spy?

Literally none of those things indicates either Russian OR spy.

Not to mention the fact that almost everything Wikileaks published is of undisputed authenticity. Even the Clinton e-mails had DKIM signature verification.

Even if Assange were a Russian operative, despite there being literally 0 evidence whatsoever, none of that has anything to do with the fact that the things Wikileaks has published about U.S. politics are real. You want to focus on the messenger to ignore the message.

Re:Your comment makes no sense

[gtall]

Not spy, stooge.

Re:the real dirty birds

[mnemotronic]

Forty or fifty years from now, the nurses at the old farts home will get their kicks by casually mentioning that Hillary Clinton is thinking of making another run for the presidency. The hillary haters will rattle their walkers, piss their pants, and get nose-bleeds as their blood pressure spikes. "Harvey! I told ya that bitch would come back from the dead to haunt us! She's the spawn of the devil!"

But don't mind me. I'm still pissed at Lincoln for wiping out all the vampires.

Re: the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the Republican and Democrat parties are inept idiots who have not accomplished a single thing that provided any benefits the citizens. They have did such a bad job that they created the perfect environment for someone like Trump becoming President. Of course both parties and their rabid disciples will never admit to such a thing because they are too busy "investigating" anyone who has ever had a conversation with a Russian. Apparently it has become illegal for a private US citizen to talk to a Russian or god forbid conduct business with anything related to Russia.

But personally none of it matters to me. I don't care what the government does or doesn't do. I belong to the invisible group that is not effected by any of today's government policies. I am white, male, heterosexual, college educated, no children, widowed, have great health care insurance, and earn to much money to take advantage of lower tax bracket breaks and do not earn enough to take advantage of the higher tax bracket breaks.

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

We all knew that. That's one of the biggest reasons she lost; if she had just played fair in the primaries, she would have still won the primary. She would have had the added benefit of Bernie fanatics coming out and voting for her. Stop acting like we're the assholes for backing Hillary. Most of us didn't. Those who did only did because she's obviously the lesser of two evils between Trump and Hillary. Yet, it is like choosing between Satan and Beelzebub.

Really, the problem is only having 2 shitty choices in the first place.

Re:Meanwhile

[Gussington]

But no Slashdot story on that, because ...? Guess it's not news.

Have you submitted one? Because that's how Slashdot works. Like Democracy you have to participate for it to be effective.

Re: Another wing of the White House under indictme

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not an adage. That's a thing you say to yourself when you're winning imaginary arguments on your drive to work.

Downvoted by America's enemies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice job. Those who can, argue. Those who can't, vote down.

Those who downvoted, love Trump, Cheney, Putin, Hillary, Blankfein, and the rest of the bastards destroying the US and the world.

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious that rambling black woman that destroyed Bernie's chances is terrified. She can't even complete a single coherent sentence. That proves she is working for Putin to try to destroy the DNC. She is scared of being killed like the rest of the people that went against the Clintons to help Putin.

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Massive difference in screwing over your party to win, and colluding with a foreign adversary. If we are going to pkay the apologists game, all criminals are not created equal--sometimes criminal H is the better option over criminal T. And if we talk policy and what is best for the US, Trump has done tremendous damage and fully intends to do more. He's completely lost most of our influence in the Sinosphere, missed the opportunity in the eastern Near East, his policy wrt Africa is a damn mess, and he's pretty much screwed the alliances in North America. Not to mention what he has already screwed over the lower middle class interests in o8r own country. No matter how morallycukpable you think H is personally (I take that back, pizzagate is on you assholes), policy wise, she was never, ever anywhere close to being utterly stupid and deliberately evil to US interests as Trump has in 9+ months.

Re:the real dirty birds

[slack_justyb]

Someone get this person points stat! Jones folks are the most hilarious group on forums because of the clear lack of introspection on their part. "Everything is this big cover up made to fool you sheeple!" says the guy who's show literally exists for him to hock BS products on people with loose wallets. The best statement about the truth of Alex Jones I have ever heard is, "Alex Jones is like what would happen if Jerry Springer had to broadcast on QVC with the former X Files writing staff."

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

why not both?

Re:Meanwhile

[slack_justyb]

Guess it's not news.

I dunno, man they're opening up two more panels on her ass. At this rate I think we're be seeing November as this time where the World Series winds up, Football is getting into full swing, Turkey dinners, autumn colors, and Clinton investigations. I would use the dead horse card here, but damn I think the card has turn into confetti at this point. Besides, yeah, we all know she's shit. We also know Trump's full of shit too, I mean look at 90% of the comments here, there's literally no one surprised by this reveal and I would say 99% of the folks here feel zero will be done about it. And "why won't anything be done about it?" you might ask?

The DNC colluded with the Hillary campaign to fix the primary election process so Hillary would win. But no Slashdot story on that, because ...?

Because no matter how shitty the people running this planet get, too many people can't get their head out of their "Team A VS Team B" ass mentality. Great job guy! Yet again, we'll make no progress on shit because everyone is just too busy trying to figure out which side is more corrupt. (thumbs up bro)

You're a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

So the solution to America's terrible trade balance is to slap a 35% tax on exports. What a great idea.

At least you also added another layer of places people can cheat the system and avoid paying the correct rate of tax. Tax accountants and lawyers will love you for this. But it kind of goes against the whole point of the article, ie removing tax avoidance, not encouraging more of it.

It's clear people like you only want to lower taxes for business and the rich while having poor people make up the difference.

yes, everyone is connected to Russia. EVERYONE!

[superwiz]

The moment USSR fell appart and open transactions started happening, everyone who traded with someone could find some connection to Russia. The article shows 4 degrees of separation between Kremlin and FB. There is usually no more than 6 degrees of separation between any 2 americans. Of course, the FB itself probably makes the number of degrees of separation much smaller. So there is probably no more than 5 degrees of separation between any 2 americans. All this shows is how ridiculous the whole Russia conspiracy theory is. RF acts as an aggressive corporate state. While the Left is trying to portray it as some remnant of former Soviet state. There is a lot of corporate interconnections between international corporations and all civilized countries. RF part of G8!!! Does anyone think that having Coke and McDonald's there imply Coke's complicity in stealing elections? Why would anyone going into business with the same people as the ones who operate some other business which finances something in Russia even mean anything? How is this anything but Democrats trying to divert attention from their own criminal actions by claiming something neferious when there is nothing that ever materialized.

Hmmm... Seems like maybe the muckrakers are rising

[bferrell]

This is a good thing

Re:Meanwhile

[ScentCone]

Quit pretending that you don't understand the point. The Dems are still so annoyed that their poorly chosen candidate didn't win (and that they've lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, and millions of two-time Obama voters who turned away in disgust) that they're STILL trying to excuse it away as being the Russians' fault, with fictional help from the Trump campaign. Somehow, the Democrats figure, the Russians used expert advice from the person too stupid to be president to use special mind-control powers to convince Hillary Clinton to forget to even set foot once in states like Wisconsin, while being careful to call the people in fly-over states irredeemably deplorable racists and worse ... and that, the mind control thing, is how she lost. It had nothing whatsoever to do with her looking everyone in the eye and lying non-stop for a year about her conduct as Secretary Of State. Or her mishandling of classified information, or her spectacularly robotic, smug behavior.

So, when the Dems insist that it was Trump/Russia to blame, it IS appropriate to talk about Clinton's own cozy (and cash-flush) relationship with the Russians as a way to illustrate the degree of hypocrisy in the way the mainstream press is trying to keep the fiction alive. Your own snark on the subject is a strong indicator of just how appropriate those observations still are to make.

Re: Meanwhile

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Monica only came to light because of rape accusations from Juanita Broaderick and Gennifer Flowers...allegations Clinton has not denied.

Enough with the "tax avoidance is good" bullshit

[Freshly Exhumed]

If you are one of those who praises tax avoidance as a laudable life goal, you are a freeloading, coat-tail riding maladroit.

The biggest value of the data dump is that an otherwise closed doorway into a strange world in which the 1%ers exist is suddenly thrown open to show that monetary enrichment dissolves any and all notions of patriotism and shared values.

Sociopaths will continue to praise their own legal proprietary, and imbeciles will continue to cheer on their beloved sociopaths, but those who try to live and excel while doing their share to make their own lives and the world they live in better get chumped again and again by an evil breed. This data dump helps to see this much clearly.

It is not about some phoney notion that tax avoidance is somehow laudable; it is about exposing corruption.

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck off you god damn paid russian shill - you are so stupid you can't get a real job

Re:yes, everyone is connected to Russia. EVERYONE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethical investing is a thing.

Re: the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask Paul Rand

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck off ivan and go find a real fucking job if you can

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

you are one stupid faggot

Re:yes, everyone is connected to Russia. EVERYONE!

[superwiz]

So is vegeterianism. But eating meat is still normal.

Re:the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the same place you determined that they were getting info from Alex Jones when you're the only one who mentioned them?

That said, at least other journalists did find that we premised the Iraq war on a lie. It's a pity they don't seem to notice when the same tactics of endless anonymously sourced rumors released via multiple outlets simultaneously are still just as bogus as before.

Russia and other strawmen

[Tom]

Here's the thing that most people don't get:

The modern elites are not nation-bound anymore. They live on yachts in international waters, fly around the world in private planes (or state-owned ones) and have their money in several different tax heavens and jurisdictions so that no amount of sanctions or other problems can shut them down.

If you honestly think any of them care about your country or my country or whatever todays "axis of evil" is, you are a complete idiot. The only thing they care about is money and power, which is why they have it. If you focus your entire life around the question of "how do I get more money?" then you have a much higher chance of making it than us normal people who are burdened with ethics, friends (real friends, not just useful contacts) and a soul or whatever you want to call that piece of humanity inside of you.

We have a brilliant example in my home country, which has been ruled for over a decade now by a person whose only demonstrated skill is how to get and keep power.

Really, all of this is so clear to anyone with three working brain cells, as they're not even trying to hide anything anymore. The only question we all should be asking ourselves is how to shut down this global robbery.

Re:Russia and other strawmen

[Cederic]

have their money in several different tax heavens and jurisdictions so that no amount of sanctions or other problems can shut them down

To be fair, that's just common sense. Diversify to avoid undue risk in any specific market or locale.

Re:Russia and other strawmen

[Tom]

You have to be a special kind of asshole to consider paying taxes in the places where you make your money an "undue risk".

You think it's just a "crotch or 2"?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude! Just a "crotch or 2"? Well, I guess you want a game of deflection within a game of deflection inside the "Look, it's the DNC" deflection.

Bill Clinton was a sleazy womaniser. But Just A "Crotch Or 2" Trump is not the guy you put up against that and say "See our shining pure leader here". Your deflection has hit the net and you've lost the point.

Clinton got impeached for his actions. What's going to happen to Trump? He's already admitted enough to get impeached. WTF is slowing you guys down?

Re:You think it's just a "crotch or 2"?!

[Opportunist]

Probably that the water has been heated steadily since Clinton that the frog doesn't jump anymore.

Quite frankly, Nixon wouldn't be impeached today, the whole Watergate would go down as a footnote in the CNN ticker and that would be it.

Re:You think it's just a "crotch or 2"?!

[HornWumpus]

LBJ didn't get impeached for doing the exact same thing Nixon did (breaking into opposition offices for information and getting caught).

It was a moment in time. They were worried about revolution. In hindsight they could have relaxed, but that means little.

Re:You think it's just a "crotch or 2"?!

[Opportunist]

Oddly they're not afraid of it today, even though there is way, way more reason for one.

Re:You think it's just a "crotch or 2"?!

[HornWumpus]

It's about numbers. In the late 60s the lunatic left was 10% of the population, now it's 1%.

In hindsight, it wasn't really a threat in the 60s. The problem is the morons that made up the 10% and make up the 1%. Think building bombs while tripping balls is a good idea. Thank dog for that.

The Russian bots here should love this...

[hyades1]

From TFA: "Ross, a billionaire and close friend of Trump, retained holdings in Navigator after taking office this year. The relationship means he stands to benefit from the operations of a Russian company run by Putin's family and close allies, some of whom are under US sanctions.

Of course the Commerce Secretary wouldn't have much say in trade regulations, would he?

Re:The Russian bots here should love this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ross has $2.9 billion dollars in wealth probably spread all over the world. He probably didn't give much consideration to his peanuts in Russia before he took office.

Re:Another wing of the White House under indictmen

[Opportunist]

I wouldn't be surprised if the janitor was also somehow involved.

Re:Another wing of the White House under indictmen

[Opportunist]

Here is your song.

Re:the real dirty birds

[Opportunist]

You publish what you got. Besides, who gives a shit about a has-been and a bunch of losers?

I'd have doot aboot it, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno, speaking as a centrist-leftist Canuck, the chain of thoughts that immediately run through my head are:

1) Ooh! Someone's gonna get a paddlin'.
2) So this is where that latest link between Trump and Russia came up. Huh.
3) Hrm, a Canadian is mentioned. Hrm, I wonder to what extent this Bronfman has evaded Canadian taxes? "Appear to" doesn't cut it in a court of law. If no, dead issue (because as posted earlier, tax avoidance is legit, even in Canada; hell, the only thing I wish is that I had more income so as to actually benefit from said shelters). If yes, there better be court time and...
2) I wonder to what extent did others utilize Bronfman to evade Canadian taxes. Doesn't matter who (Trudeau, Scheer, Singh, Ouellet, the Horton family, the Orr family, Justin Bieber, etc). If no, dead issue. If yes, there better be even more court time. Then, lastly, if it's been dead issue so far...
3) Should these sorts of tax shelters be outlawed or restricted? The answer to that is outside of my experience and knowledge-base, so I'd leave it up to the appropriate experts to wave hands about until something gets passed/killed in Commons.

You could "No TRUE Scotsman" the above, but from the other centrist-leftists I know, the rule of law matters regardless of who it is. It underlies society as a whole. I think that leftists are very much about society issues. I think we get twitchy about 'individualists', because we end up having to ask "so, to what extent are you being reasonably selfish? And how much compromise will you tolerate?" This isn't to say that leftists wouldn't resort to violence first (or at all), nor wouldn't value individual rights over collective ones (we're not the high road), but in general, obeying the law is viewed as a "good thing".

Re: the real dirty birds

[Opportunist]

Well, the media isn't yet 100% right wing, and you know how the press runs the country against the wishes of our dear leader.

At least that's what the media tell me.

Re:the real dirty birds

[TheRaven64]

Let me break it down for you:

Leaks indicating that a democratic country that has a government accountable to its public is corrupt and is using the security apparatus to spy on its own citizens or destabilise nominally friendly foreign regimes: News.

Leaks indicating that a corrupt oligarchy run by the former head of the security apparatus who uses intimidation as a tool to keep himself in power is using the security apparatus to spy on its own citizens or destabilise nominally friendly foreign regimes: Not news.

If your defence is 'Russia is as bad as us!' then you're in a pretty depressing place.

"Aggressive tax avoidance "?

[jcr]

Since when is it "aggression" to keep what you earn?

Every dollar kept out of government hands is a dollar not spent on causing bloody mayhem. As an Apple shareholder, I wish they'd get a lot MORE proactive about saving my money and zero out their tax payments the way that GE does.

-jcr

Re:"Aggressive tax avoidance "?

[hyades1]

When you're powerful enough and rich enough to bribe the people writing the rules, there is no such thing as cheating.

And when the society you're parasitizing eventually collapses because the tax-maintained infrastructure rots out, you just move on to the next one.

Re:"Aggressive tax avoidance "?

[swilver]

Yes, and as the government isn't getting its fair share, it will just have to raise taxes for all those people that do pay taxes. End result: Apple executives get richer, you get poorer.

Re:"Aggressive tax avoidance "?

[Anonymous Coward]

when the poor pay 0% federal tax, are they parasitizing society?

Re:"Aggressive tax avoidance "?

[Graymalkin]

As a shareholder Appleâ(TM)s taxes have little impact on you. Their share value is what someone thinks they can sell a share for tomorrow so they offer you slightly less than that number today. Share prices have little to do with a companyâ(TM)s fundamentals anymore. That is unless youâ(TM)re an institutional investor that might actually make some real money off dividends.

Full disclosure: I also own Apple stock and I donâ(TM)t think Apple is âoecheatingâ on their taxes. They pay what and to whom they are legally obliged to pay. Those taxes just donâ(TM)t affect my holdings very much if at all.

Re:"Aggressive tax avoidance "?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may think of them as heroes, but the rest of us taxpayers think of them as freeloaders suckling at the public teet.

Apple's business model completely revolves around the US Government's massive apparatus for enforcing "intellectual property" laws (military, courts, customs), not to mention their reliance on roads, education, and so on. But they don't feel like they should have to pay for it, which leaves honest citizens like me holding the bag.

Well, I say Apple and its shareholders can go fuck themselves. If they want to use (and abuse) the services of the State, they should have to pay for them.

dom

Re:Enough with the "tax avoidance is good" bullshi

[jcr]

Fuck you, and every other looter. Taxation is theft.

-jcr

Re:Tipping point...

[jcr]

Exactly. Rich people are not a stationary target. Every single "soak the rich" scheme has turned into looting the middle class as we get inflated into those tax brackets.

-jcr

except they won't

[Anonymous Coward]

because Trump wants these tariffs on foreign good which means liberals will ""resist"" them.

Re:Meanwhile

[Opportunist]

News about a loser that plays no role anymore? No, that's not news. At least it's not really interesting.

Re:Meanwhile

[Opportunist]

We have already poured something like 100 million dollars into investigating her and Bill Clinton and all we got out of it was a lie about a blowjob.

If you word it that way, my last relationship was kinda a bargain. Though with similar results.

Re:Meanwhile

[Opportunist]

Because the spotlight has been turned off long ago. Whether she moves or not, nobody really gives a shit anymore. She can as well stay where she is, at least as long as she doesn't get in the way.

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how there's always some Trump supporter ready to try and change the conversation to Clinton every time proof of illegal and immoral activity by Trump and his associates comes up.

Are you getting paid a fair wage for this or did you drink the orange kool-aid?

Re:the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be the only one talking about Alex Jones. Just sayin' .. libtard.

Re:the real dirty birds

[Plus1Entropy]

It's like they cloned a clone of a clone of a clone of G.W. Bush and got Rick Perry. I swear they even look alike from certain angles.

Maybe I'm the only one but I definitely get an uncanny valley vibe between him and W. The glasses definitely help to offset it; I think he started wearing them just to throw off suspicion.

Does "conflict of interest" mean anything anymore?

[hyades1]

TFA mentions that Donald Trump's close friend and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross "stands to benefit from the operations of a Russian company run by Putin's family and close allies, some of whom are under US sanctions."

The link it provides is also pretty damning: https://www.theguardian.com/ne...

I suspect real Americans take a dim view of a high administration official who maintains financial ties to companies being sanctioned by the US government.

Re:the real dirty birds

[Plus1Entropy]

Strange how they don't dig up even bigger dirt during the globlists' cabals like the Bushes, Clintons and O.

I agree, it's strange how they don't find evidence that doesn't exist.

FYI, if you reply to me with the 'evidence', then WTF is the parent bitching about?

Re: the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

The logic is actually pretty simple. US isn't run by top level leadership. It's run by the more local ones. And those are far easier to pressure with media and activists - two parts that are solidly left and far left in the current age in US.

Wait, what? The rich people in the US are "solidly left and far left"? Now I heard it all.

Re:Meanwhile

[gtall]

Not to mention that the Republicans in the House voted to impeach Billy on lying about getting BJs, whereas they cannot see fit to do anything about an alleged Administration which seems bought and paid for by the Soviets, we call them Russians now.

Re:Meanwhile

[colfer]

Everybody who reads the paper knows about that. But Christie's term ends January 16, 2018, and it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to expel Menendez. https://www.politico.com/story...

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

We have already poured something like 100 million dollars into investigating her and Bill Clinton and all we got out of it was a lie about a blowjob.

That is a lie, you have no good faith.

Re:the real dirty birds

[mjwx]

Sorry I hurt your feelings little snowflake, but where exactly did you determine I'm an "SJW".

You seem to misunderstand.

"SJW" simply means "You said something I don't like and cant rationally refute". In that regard, you are definitely an SJW..

Re:Does "conflict of interest" mean anything anymo

[Baron_Yam]

>I suspect real Americans take a dim view of a high administration official who maintains financial ties to companies being sanctioned by the US government.

I suspect 'real' Americans are comprised of citizens of the USA, and a significant number of them will ignore this because it reflects poorly on Trump, who isn't one of those dirty Dems and certainly isn't a black secret Muslim who was born in Kenya.

Besides, look at this fake news about Hillary!

Re:Enough with the "tax avoidance is good" bullshi

[Baron_Yam]

Tax avoidance being a problem means the tax laws need to be rewritten. Expecting people not to keep as much of their wealth as possible within the law is foolish. You 'avoid' taxes every time you claim a deduction... go ahead, tell me you never claim a deduction on your taxes...

Tax evasion, on the other hand... that's effectively treason, since you're not giving your share as required by the laws of the society within which you generated your wealth in the first place. Tax evasion makes you a parasite.

The problem is when those doing the tax avoiding start to look a lot like the tax evaders because they have influence and lawyers who let them have the rules altered or escape the consequences of pushing the grey areas too much.

Conflating Different Things

[nealric]

I am a tax corporate attorney. My job is to ensure that a Fortune 500 company does not pay more tax than legally owed. When operating internationally, half the game is just making sure you don't get hosed and end up getting double-taxed by two different jurisdictions or not being allowed to use a big loss you have suffered to offset a gain elsewhere- so when I say more than "legally owed" I do not mean more than technically owed after some complected scheme is executed.

These stories tend to confuse tax evasion, tax avoidance, and money laundering. While an offshore company may be used for any of those things, the mere use of an offshore company doesn't necessarily mean a company or person is engaging in any of them.

In my business, we use offshore companies as neutral third locations. For example, if we need to operate in a dodgy part of Africa, we likely don't want to form a subsidiary in that country because such countries often lack robust corporate law and because it can be very administratively burdensome to form a new company there. The Caymans offers robust corporate law, a functioning court system, quick setup, and quick dissolution. There are both tax and non-tax reasons not to use a U.S. company for that purpose. If we were to sell that subsidiary, a foreign buyer may not want to purchase a U.S. company with all of the administrative and legal burden that comes with owning one. Tax-wise, using a non-U.S. entity prevents that company from being taxed in both the U.S. and the operating country. It would still be subject to U.S. tax if it sends money to the U.S. parent, but it's usually possible to manage tax attributes and cash so that's not necessary.

A tax avoidance motive might be something like an earnings-stripping transaction where intellectual property is licensed to a low-tax country. However, the tax code hardly allows carte-blanche for doing transactions like this, and the time has long passed when you could just set up a Cayman company with no employees that holds all of your intellectual property. Large companies are audited every single year or are under a continuous audit program the IRS runs- nobody in the world of big business "gets away" with something- everything must be legally justified. As a result, the most aggressive tax avoidance transactions tend to be seen from medium sized privately held businesses and high net worth individuals- not large public companies.

For individuals without extensive business operations, offshore companies rarely offer any legal tax benefit. As an individual, you are still subject to worldwide taxation. Rules such as the personal foreign holding company rules in the tax code are specifically designed to prevent offshore companies from being used for personal tax avoidance.

You will find individuals who use offshore company for straight-up tax evasion. This is one of the things Paul Manefort was indicted for. Legally, you must declare offshore accounts- and he allegedly did not. Laws such as FATCA and foreign equivalents are making this strategy tougher to pull off because they require tax withholding on transfer to an offshore location if the individual refuses to provide information necessary to report the transaction to the tax authorities.

Finally, you will find offshore accounts used for money laundering. That is a very different type of operation from multinationals using them for a legal benefit. It's worth noting that not all offshore locations are created equal in this regard. Jurisdictions like the Caymans and Bermuda have extensive anti-money laundering laws that they do their best to enforce. As a result, most Cayman and Bermuda companies are subsidiaries of legitimate business. By contrast, a fortune 500 company would almost never use Panama for a subsidiary unless it was actually doing business in-country.

TLDR: Articles like this talk about offshore companies as if they are always illegitimate and treat tax avoidance, tax evasion, and money laundering as the same thing. There are both legitimate and illegitimate uses of offshore companies, and each of these things are separate phenomena.
 

Re:Conflating Different Things

[boudie2]

Oh, so I see. You're not breaking the law, you're working around the law. Well put.

Re:Conflating Different Things

[nealric]

You seem to imply we are using offshore companies to defeat the intent of the law. But that's not the case. The law doesn't really intend to double-tax companies on their foreign earnings, but the various rules in place can cause that to happen if the company does not plan carefully.

Re:Conflating Different Things

[olau]

You seem to imply we are using offshore companies to defeat the intent of the law. But that's not the case.

Never the case? Or just sometimes not the case? I think people have a problem with the latter, even if they only occur for one out of ten of these empty shell companies.

Also, there are sometimes conflicts of interest. For instance, if your company has an operation in Africa, it's probably of interest to the locals that you pay taxes there too, even if it's more work for you.

In any case, thanks for writing these comments.

Re:Conflating Different Things

[nealric]

I would argue my company never intends to defeat the intent of the law, though I understand that there are companies with more aggressive tax groups that will if they think they can. It's also worth noting that the tax code actually has various provisions intended to defeat tax planning that defeats the intent of the law even if the planning satisfies the letter.

To clarify my Africa example: the offshore company is paying taxes in Africa- exactly the same as it would if it were incorporated there.

Re:Conflating Different Things

[boudie2]

I did, didn't I?

Re:Conflating Different Things

[Gryle]

I'm out of modpoints, but fortunately you're already at a +5. Thanks for writing that. It was one of the more informative comments I've seen on Slashdot in a bit.

quotas are even worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse than America's high tariffs are the quotas. Companies would love to pay the high tariffs, but they can't as the US wont even let them pay. The tariff is effectively infinity.

Re:Enough with the "tax avoidance is good" bullshi

[lexman098]

No need for a military then I guess.

Re:Meanwhile

[Ksevio]

I think the point you're missing is that the election was over a year ago. No one really cares about Clinton because she lost and has no authority. Trump on the other hand is the active president so if he's a pawn of a foreign country, it's a big deal.

Re: the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's set in a different country, you should watch Yes, Minister sometime. The career bureaucracy is where a great deal of government power lays, and you can guess where their sympathies tend to lie (and I don't mean D or R, just whatever expands their own power).

Re:the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't go making broad claims with 0 evidence to support it

Not a single one of the thirty or so comments above this one had any meaningful link associated with them.

Slashdot is 90% opinion.

His is just the political opposite of your's. And the mod bombers.

Bomb on, children.

Re:Meanwhile

[squiggleslash]

I understand the point perfectly. You want to deflect attention from the Russian scandals and you're under the impression that repeating some third-hand smear about Clinton, who is irrelevant politically and deeply unpopular among Democrats, will somehow do that.

It's pathetic.

First of all, "hypocrisy" is the last defense uttered by the completely guilty. Nobody cares.

Second: the Clintons have under attack, the subject of a blatant smear campaign, now for 25 years. It is no longer possible to believe a single negative statement about them unless they cop up and own up to it themselves. Does it appear in their autobiography? Then it might be true. Did it appear in the New York Times? Sorry, but even the Times has spent most of the last 25 years robotically repeating whatever was said about them.

The situation right now is that if "Bill" or "Hillary" stood right in front of me, and straight up murdered someone, I would automatically assume that the person who did it was actually either an actor in a mask, or a robot.

And you'd laugh at me and say "Hah, stupid luhbruahl leftist cuck, doesn't believe it when he sees it for himself". And then, just after you said that the robot's fucking face would fall off revealing the circuitry underneath. Because that is literally 7,281 times more likely than the Clintons actually doing it.

I don't have a debunking for this particular thing at hand yet because I can't be bothered to Google one, but let's take last week's Uranium bullshit and run it through the filter of a journalist who does her job for once (alas, it's MSNBC, but bear with her, she actually does it.) [Caution: Video]

That's a great one because (1) the right wing media, and some of the left, including the New York Times, promoted it as a massive scandal for several days, and (2) the debunking shows how the entire thing was essentially done by removing pertinent facts known to everyone reporting the story. Which is almost certainly the underlying situation with this thread's "scandal".

MORE CRAZY CONSIRACY THEORIES

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of Russians died in WW2 so Democrats could make fake news. God bless Putin. All you hateful haters who don't like our President need to be censored. Only positive, constructive comments should be allowed.

Heil Hillary as mandated by law!

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when the Dems insist that it was Trump/Russia to blame, it IS appropriate to talk about Clinton's own cozy (and cash-flush) relationship with the Russians

Feel free to talk about it, certainly. Just don't expect anyone to care. It doesn't matter because Clinton is out of power, and will never get another serious shot at it. Oh, sure, if compelling evidence turns up she should be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the man in power colluded, that's something we need to know, and something that is worth spending public money to investigate, as a deterrent to anyone else who might think they can get away with such shenanigans. This is true even if Trump didn't do it, because we need to ensure that everyone knows that it's important to stay far way from even the appearance of corruption. It's equally important that we aggressively investigate Trump's business dealings now, because the Emoluments Clause is important and it seems very possible that Trump is violating it. Again, it's important even if Trump isn't doing it.

That said, I'm pretty sure Trump's campaign did collude, and that Trump knew about it and approved, and that he is knowingly exploiting the presidency to enrich himself. I'm less confident that anyone will be able to turn up actual evidence that he was personally involved. On the other hand, the man is such an idiot that it wouldn't shock me if he did leave evidence lying around. Either way, it's well worth spending the money to investigate thoroughly, if for no other reason than to encourage future candidates and presidents to be more careful to avoid the appearance of corruption.

This is why America needs thinking people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to cut of your nose to spite your face.
35% tax on exports. That wont just make your balance of payments so much worse. But actually encourage American companies to just set up shop in other countries instead. Bye bye taxes and bye bye jobs too.

Re:Enough with the "tax avoidance is good" bullshi

[Freshly Exhumed]

"Expecting people not to keep as much of their wealth as possible within the law is foolish."

No, that's incorrect. Expecting people not to pay their fair share as possible within the law is foolish. No freeloaders, no coat-tail-riders, no overgrown babies who never learned that sharing is critical to their own existence. No excuses.

Re:Enough with the "tax avoidance is good" bullshi

[Baron_Yam]

The law defines what your fair share is; you're setting an overriding, undocumented, vague 'standard' and then complaining when people don't meet it.

Re:the real dirty birds

[spun]

You fuckheads shit in your own hands and wonder why the rest of us won't give you any respect. That's not an argument you're trying to sell me, it's a pile of shit. There's no god damn point to respond to you window licking short bus riding goon. You just shit in your hand! You don't deserve a respectful reply to that.

Verification?

[Shogun37]

Is there any effort being made to verify all this, or is it just "You can trust me, I'm a reporter"? Because I can think of a lot of groups that would love to cause this level of chaos. Well, besides British tabloids (Weekly World News level, right there.)

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!

Deflections

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding "...how much the government sucks at doing most (not all, just most) of things it tries to do..."

This is a typical deflection, attempting to justify tax evasion. No one ever says about the private sector, "well industry sucks at defense, law enforcement, international affairs, education, and support for the poor, so investing in industry is a total waste of money."

We need government to do the things that the private sector cannot or will not do, or will do poorly. We need the private sector to do the things that government cannot or will not do, or will do poorly.

Throwaway statements meant to undermine support for the government as a concept are a partisan staple of the political right. They whip up support among the ignorant, who immediately turn around and aggressively claim medical benefits (government), military service benefits (government), educational supports (government), ...

Re:Enough with the "tax avoidance is good" bullshi

[Anonymous Coward]

dissolves any and all notions of patriotism and shared values

Big fucking deal. I have nothing in common with the rest of the morons and useless eaters in my country. The idea that I should be "patriotic" to those cretins is an insult. Why should I give a shit?

Sigh, so stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Mouth-breather, they called themselves socialists but weren't actually socialists in their deeds. Go to a freedom of speech rally and call the neo-nazis there a socialist, I dare you.

I want a text download of all the data.

[SpectateSwamp]

We need a site where we can get or search the data.
My app can search text files at 20,000,000 cps. In context or matching lines only.

So far the leakers have piss poor job.

There will be a lot more and we need the ability to easily search...

Re: Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Monica only came to light because of rape accusations from Juanita Broaderick and Gennifer Flowers...allegations Clinton has not denied.

So do people generally agree that unwanted sexual advances and/or rape are unacceptable for a person who was, is, or will be POTUS?

Re:Does "conflict of interest" mean anything anymo

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a "real American" and realize virtually everyone probably has ties to some country somewhere that does business in a country sanctioned by the US government merely by having a retirement plan.

Mutual funds, 401k, IRA, a bank CD that gave a loan out to someone somewhere, international corporations with dozens upon dozens of shell companies the world over.

Who isn't guilty of this heresy? How could you not be while maintaining a diversified investment plan that beats inflation?

More importantly, why are so many people quick anger at Trump, when Trudeau is in the same situation?

Re:Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow that's not very politically correct

Newsletter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you by chance have a newsletter that can be subscribed to?

Stfu, Rtfs, rtfa

[Anonymous Coward]

Stfu, Rtfs, rtfa

Re:Meanwhile

[deadwill69]

I so wish I had points! This needs to be modded up!!!

Re:Meanwhile

[ScentCone]

Deflect from Russian scandals? I'm pointing out the real, actual Russian scandals. The Russian-bundled deposits into the Clinton family business in an amount well over a hundred million dollars is a matter of public record. Bill Clinton's acceptance of half a million dollars in cash (directly, to him, not laundered through the family business) is a matter of public record, and occurred in precise coordination with his wife, the Secretary of State, signing off on a huge energy deal favorable to Putin.

Meanwhile, there continues to be exactly zero evidence of Trump having anything whatsoever to do with the Russians placing ads on Facebook or anything else that you seem to think caused millions of Democrats to not vote for yer when they otherwise would have.

The Clintons HAVE been under scrutiny ever since Bill was in Arkansas politics, because they've been operating corruptly ever since then. Dozens of their associates have ended up being thrown under the Clinton bus and had their careers ended, been convicted of crimes, and lost their fortunes, even as these two people because fantastically wealthy while only ever holding jobs as public employees. She sent her own White House staff out to smear the reputations of the women her predator of a husband abused, has lied her way through endless hearings and testimony, and you LOVE her for it. That's fine. Just admit it. You like her so much that you actually approve of her looking you in the eye and lying because you wanted her to get back the political power that she and her husband used to make themselves incredibly rich. And a healthy dose of that money came from Russia, along with several other awful sources. But you like it that way! Just admit it, and relax.

Debunked earlier in thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote seems relevant but it out of context.

Re:Paula Jones did not consent even if Monica did.

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys always divert

Priceless!

Re:Enough with the "tax avoidance is good" bullshi

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see this post get some mod points. I posted the same sentiment on the original Panama Papers post years ago and I was slapped down and ridiculed.

What you say is true. What has not happened is the necessary amendments to the laws to prohibit such behavior. Second, Tax haven or not the data is digital and so is the money. Therefore, the laws should be retrospective and the people who have outstanding tax bills after the new said laws are put in place should immediately start making contributions.

They should pay those contributions incurring interest based on CPI and be hit with a criminal record at the same time. No court rulings just a blemish is fine with me as I'd happy to not see them jailed so they're forced to admit their criminal record to their future employers. Because after all that misappropriated money has been recouped they'll need to enter the work force again. They can see what its like being on the bad end of societies stick! And they can serve me burgers at McDonalds while they do it.

Anything less is just unethical because lets face it, whats right is right. Anything more is just a bonus in my view.

Re:Enough with the "tax avoidance is good" bullshi

[Anonymous Coward]

Within the law there seems to be two different minds around this. We can either make 'simple', 'easy' hacks like editing a URL illegal and call that hacking, or we can go the other route and demand we define the exact chemical compound that is considered an illegal drug then end up with legal variants that cause the same sort of high that the illegal drug created. Both seem unsatisfactory.

The GP seems to think that we should auto-block loop holes which creates its own forms of chaos. For example, does child care (a tax deduction), which certainly does include playing, include piano lessons? If you answer with, 'unless it is on this list, no' you lock society into whenever that list was made, hitting into a tax-cab mind set, making it harder for innovations like Uber to appear. If you answer with, 'it depends', you will get skilled tax-hackers who come up with clever methods for by-passing the intent of the law.

You can either have flexibility or clarity. Pick one.

Re: the real dirty birds

[Anonymous Coward]

âoemedia and activists - two parts that are solidly left and far left in the current age in US.âoe

Does this s help make it more clear?
Reading is fundamental.

Re: "Tax havens are one of the key engines of the

[Bartles]

Welcome to the troll club of truth.

Re:Failing to report income is evasion. 401k/FSA i

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think that every business is clean. You are mistaken. Boss takes his wife and kids to supper and writes it up as a marketing expense.
Go on a cruise, and charge the trip to marketing.
Hairdressors, barbers, waiters, and all service oriented people only declare a portion of under-the-table earnings. That takes place in every country in the world. It is what is called the hidden economy.

So millionares transfer businesses to foreign countries, and let the business pay the corporate taxes there. As long as you do not bring back the money, its legal. Bring it back without declaring it is illegal.
Going on a trip and spending money from that business is one way to benefit from your foreign investment.

Get rid of cash, governments to force credit/debit cards only will be the method for government to track those dollars.

Re:Paula Jones did not consent even if Monica did.

[david_thornley]

IIRC, Paula Jones' claims didn't meet the legal definition of sexual harassment, and she couldn't show damages. Clinton was clearly being a jerk, but that's not chargeable. There are more or less believable accusations about Clinton that are worse.

Re:Meanwhile

[david_thornley]

Meanwhile, there continues to be exactly zero evidence of Trump having anything whatsoever to do with the Russians

Completely and utterly false, this shows that you aren't interested in any sort of reasonable argument.

Trump has a lot of business dealings with Russians that are on public record. We know he deals with the Russians. Many of his close associates have denied Russian connections and been shown to be liars. There's evidence. You could argue against some of the evidence, but apparently that's too difficult so you wish it away.

Tax Havens are NOT illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

In general none of these are illegal. They are convoluted because the law causes that. But strictly legal.

The problem is too many people and governments who want to "free ride" despite this.

I have ZERO problems with tax avoidance.

VAT is regressive taxation. Bottom 80%

[AutodidactLabrat]

Under a VAT the businesses pays no tax at all save on consumables.
Thus, no tax incentive to reinvest.
Result?
The bottom 80% currently pay 40% of gross in net regressive taxes. Add in the vat and it becomes 66% of gross.
Top 10% see their taxes all but evaporate
35 years of tax cuts will fix everything said Republicans.
Where are the jobs?
Failed idea whose time is already past
Look at Kansas

Re:the real dirty birds

[HornWumpus]

They'll just smile and say 'We dodged that bullet! It was a good year.'

TDS people on the other hand, will have put themselves into an early grave with unfocused impotent rage.

Give me the text data damnit

[SpectateSwamp]

Having just journalists look at the files isn't good enough.

Give us plain text files of all the textual info so we can search ourselves.

Text is useful on any operating system windows apple linux you name it.

I would search emails by looking at the "subject:" line matches. This app can display 30 or more matches per page.
Anything that interests me can be looked at in context.
The matches can be extracted to a text file and sorted for a different look.

There will be many more leaks and this form of data release just doesn't cut it.