• Huge leak reveals how the world's rich and powerful hide their money and dodge sanctions/taxes
    434 replies, posted
They have every advantage. Every chance to profit and they clearly are. How are the rich anywhere on earth shafted? How? Describe how a person who has a billion or more in a bank account has been "shafted" because I don't think that's the same kind of shafting the rich do to the poor. A poor man gets shafted, loses his house family and life. Rich guy gets shafted and now he can't buy 20 super cars rather than the 19 he has. How is a rich person even shafted? Even paying as much taxes as they do, explain how that's "shafting" and tell me why preventing their shafting is going to help me or the average joe?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50109571]They have every advantage. Every chance to profit and they clearly are. How are the rich anywhere on earth shafted? How? Describe how a person who has a billion or more in a bank account has been "shafted" because I don't think that's the same kind of shafting the rich do to the poor. A poor man gets shafted, loses his house family and life. Rich guy gets shafted and now he can't buy 20 super cars rather than the 19 he has. How is a rich person even shafted? Even paying as much taxes as they do, explain how that's "shafting" and tell me why preventing their shafting is going to help me or the average joe?[/QUOTE] Assuming the money was made legally, then it's their money. Whether they want 19 or 20 supercars is totally up to them. It has literally nothing to do with whether other people have a right to their money. Why are they shafted? Because the society around them has shifted into a mode where it depends on taking more and more of their money. We are continually shifting the tax burden to the top, continually blaming the rich for all our problems, continually demanding that they "pay their fair share" when "their fair share" seems to be any arbitrary amount the middle class thinks they deserve. We've gotten to the point where over half the country doesn't pay federal income taxes. Having more money doesn't make it any less your own money. Not wanting to turn over vast sums of it to a government that continually attacks you more and more doesn't make you a stomper of the poor.
I pay a huge amount in taxes. A crippling amount. No single rich person anywhere is crippled by taxes yet they're shafted, not me? I'm great, but them? They're shafted? No. They're not.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50109650]I pay a huge amount in taxes. A crippling amount. No single rich person anywhere is crippled by taxes yet they're shafted, not me? I'm great, but them? They're shafted? No. They're not.[/QUOTE] You don't decide based on how much is left. You decide based on how much is taken. Also, I would never deny that your average upper-middle class person is shafted as well. The only thing stopping them from cheating their taxes is ability, not desire.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109652]You don't decide based on how much is left. You decide based on how much is taken. Also, I would never deny that your average upper-middle class person is shafted as well. The only thing stopping them from cheating their taxes is ability, not desire.[/QUOTE] Really should decide based on how much is left, it makes a lot more sense for the vast majority of people.
[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;50109700]Really should decide based on how much is left, it makes a lot more sense for the vast majority of people.[/QUOTE] If you want to abolish the idea of having a right to your own property, fine, but one of the of the founding principles of our society is that you have a right to what you own, and your money is one of those things. By saying that the state has a right to take whatever it wants as long as it leaves you with what it thinks is adequate you are saying that people no longer have any right to their own property. The state gets to decides what you are allowed to keep.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109652]You don't decide based on how much is left. You decide based on how much is taken. Also, I would never deny that your average upper-middle class person is shafted as well. The only thing stopping them from cheating their taxes is ability, not desire.[/QUOTE] So should I be allowed to pay a fraction of the taxes I owe based on ability then? What if I had the capability to do so, would it be okay for me to hide the same ratio they hide? You can't tell me the rich get shafted when they effectively lose nothing, but I lose food out of my mouth. How the fuck is that shafting them? do I have to be dirt poor and dying to be considered "shafted" by you or something?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50109711]So should I be allowed to pay a fraction of the taxes I owe based on ability then? What if I had the capability to do so, would it be okay for me to hide the same ratio they hide? You can't tell me the rich get shafted when they effectively lose nothing, but I lose food out of my mouth. How the fuck is that shafting them? do I have to be dirt poor and dying to be considered "shafted" by you or something?[/QUOTE] They lose their property. That's what they lose. It's theirs. They own it. Them having more than you doesn't make them have any less of a right to their own property.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109707]If you want to abolish the idea of having a right to your own property, fine, but one of the of the founding principles of our society is that you have a right to what you own, and your money is one of those things. By saying that the state has a right to take whatever it wants as long as it leaves you with what it thinks is adequate you are saying that people no longer have any right to their own property. The state gets to decides what you are allowed to keep.[/QUOTE] Now that I think about it a bit more it just seems like a glass half full half empty situation. They both mean the same thing really. or I'm just not completely getting it because it really just seems like one is being optimistic and the other pessimistic.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109707]If you want to abolish the idea of having a right to your own property, fine, but one of the of the founding principles of our society is that you have a right to what you own, and your money is one of those things. By saying that the state has a right to take whatever it wants as long as it leaves you with what it thinks is adequate you are saying that people no longer have any right to their own property. The state gets to decides what you are allowed to keep.[/QUOTE] And the governance of the country is left up to a politcal sector, who is incredibly valuable to have in the pocket of said rich people. The average senator and congressman spend 2/3 of their time fundraising and they aren't fundraising from middle class, or even upper class people. They're fundraising from the ultra wealthy. How does that represent a fair system where the tax burden isn't wrongly shifted on to the poor? The poor cannot feasibly pay the same amount of money obviously, so the numbers show them not paying much in comparison, but in relation to what they have, are you serious?
[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;50109724]Now that I think about it a bit more it just seems like a glass half full half empty situation. They both mean the same thing really.[/QUOTE] When you ask, "How much should the state be allowed to take?" You are starting with the assumption that the person in question has the right to their property, but that the state is required to take some in order for it to function. When you ask, "How much should the person be allowed to keep?" You are starting with the assumption that the state has the right to the property, but that they are allowing the person in question to keep part of it. It's fundamentally different.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109721]They lose their property. That's what they lose. It's theirs. They own it. Them having more than you doesn't make them have any less of a right to their own property.[/QUOTE] So if I lose my house because it's a choice of food, or shelter, you're telling me that the only person in that equation who got shafted by taxes was the rich guy who owns the building I live in because there's no feasible way for me to raise the capital to own property or for me to raise capital to just pick up and move to a different area with more affordable housing? Is there any situation where the rich aren't shafted while sitting on billions of dollars that literally cannot be spent?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50109725]And the governance of the country is left up to a politcal sector, who is incredibly valuable to have in the pocket of said rich people. The average senator and congressman spend 2/3 of their time fundraising and they aren't fundraising from middle class, or even upper class people. They're fundraising from the ultra wealthy. How does that represent a fair system where the tax burden isn't wrongly shifted on to the poor? The poor cannot feasibly pay the same amount of money obviously, so the numbers show them not paying much in comparison, but in relation to what they have, are you serious?[/QUOTE] The poorest person's vote is just as valuable as the rich person's vote.
If the rich don't have poor people to sell their things to, how do they keep gaining money? Is the whole point of this scheme we call capitalism just to consolidate all the wealth amongst the few and then create a serfdom of poor people who require the rich for property, goods, and jobs? [editline]10th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50109745]The poorest person's vote is just as valuable as the rich person's vote.[/QUOTE] That's factually untrue. Who's vote do you listen to more? The one with no money attached, or the one with 1000 attached that you know you need to get re-elected in 2 years?
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109733]When you ask, "How much should the state be allowed to take?" You are starting with the assumption that the person in question has the right to their property, but that the state is required to take some in order for it to function. When you ask, "How much should the person be allowed to keep?" You are starting with the assumption that the state has the right to the property, but that they are allowing the person in question to keep part of it. It's fundamentally different.[/QUOTE] That really just sounds like optimism vs pessimism
Citizens United alone proves you wrong how can you even think that
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50109734]So if I lose my house because it's a choice of food, or shelter, you're telling me that the only person in that equation who got shafted by taxes was the rich guy who owns the building I live in because there's no feasible way for me to raise the capital to own property or for me to raise capital to just pick up and move to a different area with more affordable housing? Is there any situation where the rich aren't shafted while sitting on billions of dollars that literally cannot be spent?[/QUOTE] Do you feel that you have the right to live in that person's housing? I don't think you have that right. So no, you are not shafted when the rich man doesn't want to give you charity. The situation you described is absolutely tragic. My heart goes out to people in that situation. I just don't think it makes the rich man have any less of a right to his own property.
If someone in a political job is spending the majority of their time fundraising, how does that equate to "A poor person vote is worth just as much as a rich persons vote" in a system that requires millions of dollars for even the smallest elections?! [editline]10th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50109763]Do you feel that you have the right to live in that person's housing? I don't think you have that right. So no, you are not shafted when the rich man doesn't want to give you charity. The situation you described is absolutely tragic. My heart goes out to people in that situation. I just don't think it makes the rich man have any less of a right to his own property.[/QUOTE] It doesn't affect his property ownership at all. Should we even be taxing them any amount at all then? Shouldn't we just be letting them rule the world and therefore generate more money for everyone because "Capitalism"? I hate to sound facile but I just can't see you admitting there's any fault with the system when you previously said the fault was the system hurt rich people too much
One of the biggest problems is that investment leads to more money than labor. If you want to get super rich you don't do it by working hard you do it by taking a lot of money and turning it into even more money. This naturally leads to the top gaining more and more wealth while the poor remain at a cap thus making social mobility quite difficult. It's not a problem that just taxing more will help, not that it will necessarily hurt, but it seems like another solution needs to come about. What that solution is, I have no clue right now. Investment is great for an economy so it needs to remain intact, however the common person needs to have the ability to invest in the market themselves. Maybe that could even lead to more true investment instead of the high amount of speculation that goes into the current market, but that's an entirely different topic.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50109767]If someone in a political job is spending the majority of their time fundraising, how does that equate to "A poor person vote is worth just as much as a rich persons vote" in a system that requires millions of dollars for even the smallest elections?! [editline]10th April 2016[/editline] It doesn't affect his property ownership at all. Should we even be taxing them any amount at all then? Shouldn't we just be letting them rule the world and therefore generate more money for everyone because "Capitalism"? I hate to sound facile but I just can't see you admitting there's any fault with the system when you previously said the fault was the system hurt rich people too much[/QUOTE] I have a feeling that our differences are coming from differing basic moral assumptions. So let's clarify. I want to have a better understand of the foundation that you're working from. What is your line of reasoning that brings you to the conclusion that the more money a person has the less right they have to their property? Or in other words, why does the state have more of a right to one's property the more money they have?
[QUOTE=Vitalogy;50109776]One of the biggest problems is that investment leads to more money than labor. If you want to get super rich you don't do it by working hard you do it by taking a lot of money and turning it into even more money. This naturally leads to the top gaining more and more wealth while the poor remain at a cap thus making social mobility quite difficult. It's not a problem that just taxing more will help, not that it will necessarily hurt, but it seems like another solution needs to come about. What that solution is, I have no clue right now. Investment is great for an economy so it needs to remain intact, however the common person needs to have the ability to invest in the market themselves. Maybe that could even lead to more true investment instead of the high amount of speculation that goes into the current market, but that's an entirely different topic.[/QUOTE] It's hard for the common person to start investing because it naturally has such high barriers of entry. Even with unit trusts, if someone buys a $1,000 stake in one and assuming a fairly decent return of 12% pa, that's only a $120 profit after 12 months. Compared to someone who invests $1,000,000 and receives a return of $120,000 after 12 months, which is more than enough to comfortably live on. It's not worth it for common people to invest. You need lots of money to invest so as to get decent returns, hence why investing is more-suited for the wealthy. But that doesn't mean that common people shouldn't invest. Literally everyone who works in Australia has their employer match 9.5% of the employee's pay and place that into what you Americans like to call defined contribution plans, such as a 401k. The returns per year are small, but the point of the plan, called superannuation, is that you're investing over your entire working life; like 50 years. Where you'll be able to use your superannuation to buy an annuity for a comfortable retirement. Those are the kinds of investments that common people should be doing.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50075930]Let's see if his numbers end up holding up. Based on what I've heard we haven't heard any real release about US companies.[/QUOTE] OK but why does the US have a free trade pact with a country with almost no industry then. The surface has barely been scratched on the Panama papers [editline]11th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50109803]I have a feeling that our differences are coming from differing basic moral assumptions. So let's clarify. I want to have a better understand of the foundation that you're working from. What is your line of reasoning that brings you to the conclusion that the more money a person has the less right they have to their property? Or in other words, why does the state have more of a right to one's property the more money they have?[/QUOTE] It's a social contract, the rich benefitted greatly from the well-being of the state therefore the state deserves to take some of that property if it is to continue the well-being of said state. We dont get bridges or bunkerbusting bombs without taxes
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109504]Lol, they aren't "stomping on the poor" by not paying taxes on a portion of their income, especially when they're already paying the vast majority of taxes. We've created a system of governance that depends upon shafting the rich. We're just starting to see what happens when the rich decide they don't want to be shafted anymore. Neither you or I have a right to their money any more than they have a right to our labor.[/QUOTE] How the fuck are they getting shafted?? Let's look at someone who makes $12,000,000 per year. That's a million per month. Someone working fulltime in my state at minimum wage is going to be bringing home about a thousand dollars per month after taxes. (Actually closer to $900 but it's easier to follow this way.) A one bedroom apartment in my area costs $500-700 per month in rent minimum. So someone making minimum wage has to pay over 50% of their pay just to even have a roof over their head. This doesn't cover any other bills such as electric, phone, internet, food,etc. And having a roommate? Doesn't actually help that much. A two bedroom apartment in my area is anywhere from $1100-1600 in rent per month. According to [url=https://smartasset.com/taxes/oregon-tax-calculator#nksGwh2s3T]this[/url], the taxes on $10m/year (the max their calculator goes to) is about 49%. That still leaves the person over half a million dollars per month to spend on bills and such. And 50% of their income after taxes would be about a quarter million dollars. I really don't see someone who makes that much having to spend a quarter million dollars per month to keep a roof over their heads even if they're living extravagantly and not taking advantage of any of the very numerous tax breaks the wealthy have access to. So how is it that the rich person is the one getting shafted here?
[QUOTE=sgman91;50109803]I have a feeling that our differences are coming from differing basic moral assumptions. So let's clarify. I want to have a better understand of the foundation that you're working from. What is your line of reasoning that brings you to the conclusion that the more money a person has the less right they have to their property? Or in other words, why does the state have more of a right to one's property the more money they have?[/QUOTE] Money a social construct that should serve the proper functioning of society. We started using it when trading pigs for eggs got out of hand. It is supposed to make things easier and make sure that everyone, whether they have only an egg, or a whole goose, can properly provide for himself. Now, money is numbered in the trillions. What you call someone's rightly earned property by virtue of their 'labor', I call a small investment, probably done by a computer, which just multiplies their money while they scratch their balls in the bahamas. The sheer amount of money has caused this to happen and pretending like we are still trying to fix the pig vs egg problem is frankly ignoring the larger issue. This is not even touching the issue of how interest creates ridiculous flows of money to the rich that is practically systemically designed so those at the bottom get fucked over. After a person gains, lets say, 1 billion, their capital is at a point where they can have just about anything. They can buy 5 cars, 2 houses, a boat, a plane, whatever the hell they need. If they ever want another boat they just wait two months and the money percolates back up. They are never in dire need of food or anything like that. Thus their needs, and the reaping of their 'hard work', if it can even be called that in some cases, is there. Money is simply an imaginary way to help regulate that that was implemented to solve problems. Now we have more problems and we need to make a system where, perhaps a rich person can still gorge themselves, but at least where the poor aren't uneducated, hungry, and fucking homeless. There is diminishing returns when you are a certain amount of rich. After that, I feel, you should only keep making ridiculous amounts of money if you are okay with a majority of it going right the fuck back into society. Good job, you made a good pizza hat shop or some shit, you have all your needs met. Want to do more? Well, while you are living the fucking LIFE, how about you benefit society more by improving this other company and allowing the profits to, I don't know, make sure children aren't afraid of the ceilings of their fucking schools coming down. Sorry, got a little heated, but jeez, the fact that you are latching on to an antiquated notion of property just irks me.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50110183]Money a social construct that should serve the proper functioning of society. We started using it when trading pigs for eggs got out of hand. It is supposed to make things easier and make sure that everyone, whether they have only an egg, or a whole goose, can properly provide for himself. Now, money is numbered in the trillions. What you call someone's rightly earned property by virtue of their 'labor', I call a small investment, probably done by a computer, which just multiplies their money while they scratch their balls in the bahamas. The sheer amount of money has caused this to happen and pretending like we are still trying to fix the pig vs egg problem is frankly ignoring the larger issue. This is not even touching the issue of how interest creates ridiculous flows of money to the rich that is practically systemically designed so those at the bottom get fucked over. After a person gains, lets say, 1 billion, their capital is at a point where they can have just about anything. They can buy 5 cars, 2 houses, a boat, a plane, whatever the hell they need. If they ever want another boat they just wait two months and the money percolates back up. They are never in dire need of food or anything like that. Thus their needs, and the reaping of their 'hard work', if it can even be called that in some cases, is there. Money is simply an imaginary way to help regulate that that was implemented to solve problems. Now we have more problems and we need to make a system where, perhaps a rich person can still gorge themselves, but at least where the poor aren't uneducated, hungry, and fucking homeless. There is diminishing returns when you are a certain amount of rich. After that, I feel, you should only keep making ridiculous amounts of money if you are okay with a majority of it going right the fuck back into society. Good job, you made a good pizza hat shop or some shit, you have all your needs met. Want to do more? Well, while you are living the fucking LIFE, how about you benefit society more by improving this other company and allowing the profits to, I don't know, make sure children aren't afraid of the ceilings of their fucking schools coming down. Sorry, got a little heated, but jeez, the fact that you are latching on to an antiquated notion of property just irks me.[/QUOTE] Just to be clear, you don't think modern society has any concept of the right to one's property? Or you don't think one's money should be considered property? I assume it's the former since the if it were the latter, then none of your points would apply if the rich person, say, invested the money in something since it would then represent real property as opposed to just money. [editline]11th April 2016[/editline] Here's where I think you guys are coming at it from the wrong direction: all society must be based on fundamental moral assumptions. These must either be an idea of natural human rights, a set of religious laws, etc. There has to be some set of principles that we all assume are true at the outset. It seems to me like you guys are instead looking at every situation individually without referring to any foundational set of moral beliefs. This is a huge problem because it allows almost literally anything to be justified.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50110301]Just to be clear, you don't think modern society has any concept of the right to one's property? Or you don't think one's money should be considered property? I assume it's the former since the if it were the latter, then none of your points would apply if the rich person, say, invested the money in something since it would then represent real property as opposed to just money.[/QUOTE] I think that modern society has a nuanced concept of a limit to one's income as defined by money which should represent resources. All of this is in an effort to economically distribute resources, which, frankly, we have been failing to do. [editline]sd[/editline] And no, you cannot just say that all of morality can be encapsulated by a one sentence answer. It can be alluded to, perhaps even very closely so, but real morality lies in a vastly complex set of logical interactions, not just sound-bite axioms.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50109873]OK but why does the US have a free trade pact with a country with almost no industry then. The surface has barely been scratched on the Panama papers[/QUOTE] Free trade is always good for the general growth of an economy. It allows both countries to use their comparative advantages to full effect. [editline]11th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;50110310]I think that modern society has a nuanced concept of a limit to one's income as defined by money which should represent resources. All of this is in an effort to economically distribute resources, which, frankly, we have been failing to do.[/QUOTE] So what is the concept? Spell it out for me because it seems like you're just making it up as you go. Is it that a person has a right to their property up to an arbitrarily set limit, but beyond that they lose that right?
[QUOTE=sgman91;50110313]Free trade is always good for the general growth of an economy. It allows both countries to use their comparative advantages to full effect. [editline]11th April 2016[/editline] So what is the concept? Spell it out for me because it seems like you're just making it up as you go.[/QUOTE] Everyone has a right to that which they produce up to the limit of being able to have whatever you want, within reasonable limits. After that point any further income is something that cannot reasonably be justified to benefit the 'owner' of it, and so would be better justified going to the rest of society. In other words "A person does NOT have a right to an unlimited income, especially when that income is the product of a largerly immoral system - when it comes at the expense of the proper functioning of society."
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50110325]Everyone has a right to that which they produce up to the limit of being able to have whatever you want, within reasonable limits. After that point any further income is something that cannot reasonably be justified to benefit the 'owner' of it, and so would be better justified going to the rest of society.[/QUOTE] OK, let's assume that your principle was put into effect. So every dollar above this limit is taken by the state. Wouldn't that just lead to a place where no one would ever make over that amount, therefore nothing would be provided to the state at all?
[QUOTE=sgman91;50110333]OK, let's assume that your principle was put into effect. So every dollar above this limit is taken by the state. Wouldn't that just lead to a place where no one would ever make over that amount, therefore nothing would be provided to the state at all?[/QUOTE] Before that amount there is still taxes, just relatively small ones. This would be like our system now. After that point the taxes are drastically increased.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.