• Huge leak reveals how the world's rich and powerful hide their money and dodge sanctions/taxes
    434 replies, posted
[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. [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] if you make all your decisions based on principle alone then you're going to fuck up a lot of shit At some point you need to take practicality into account. That's just reality.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50110339]if you make all your decisions based on principle alone then you're going to fuck up a lot of shit At some point you need to take practicality into account. That's just reality.[/QUOTE] Practicality isn't a goal in itself. Practicality is a way to reach a goal, and the goal is based on your principles. So let us say that our society had two principles: 1) People have a right to their legally gained property. 2) The state has the responsibility to decrease suffering as much as possible. We would then act in accordance with both of those principles. If you get rid of the first, then you can justify essentially taking any amount of money in the name of the second. [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.[/QUOTE] Right, but I'm talking about any income over the limit that you mentioned earlier. Wouldn't there be absolutely zero incentive to ever make over that level of income, therefore making the entire idea pointless?
[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] Also, part of my point is that with the ridiculously large sums we play with now, some people just need to go to the bahamas for 2 weeks and they net a profit. Some billionaires just stumble into more money like it's fucking spider webs in fall.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50110301]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] Did you read my post? Kinda curious since you just ignored it otherwise and it doesn't seem to fall under this claim as far as I can see.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50110353]Practicality isn't a goal in itself. Practicality is a way to reach a goal, and the goal is based on your principles. Right, but I'm talking about any income over the limit that you mentioned earlier. Wouldn't there be absolutely zero incentive to ever make over that level of income, therefore making the entire idea pointless?[/QUOTE] But your principles can't all be equal all the time. You need to prioritize based on the situation. Should people have the right to their property? Yes. Should the government look out for the interests of it's people? Yes. Those two ideas are always going to conflict with each other, and there's never going to be an objectively, demonstrably perfect balance between the two. Too much importance placed on either one would end up being bad. It isn't enough to just say "these are my principles and anything that contradicts them is bad". The world is too messy to be broken down into simple platitudes.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50110353]Practicality isn't a goal in itself. Practicality is a way to reach a goal, and the goal is based on your principles. [/quote] It is more complex than that, your principles depend on what you value, and what you must value as a human. If you want to go all ethical theory on this then every person has an equal reason to act towards other's benefits as to their own as the most valuable thing is humanity. Any action or system that goes against the benefit of humanity is to be considered atleast partially immoral. [quote] Right, but I'm talking about any income over the limit that you mentioned earlier. Wouldn't there be absolutely zero incentive to ever make over that level of income, therefore making the entire idea pointless?[/QUOTE] Either A) Some people won't care because it's more like a game and prestige thing for who can rack up the biggest high score. B) Even if nobody did it, there would still be tax money equal to our amounts today. If someone did it then there would be a reason. It is a contingency. C) Someone would probably do it if only by force of economic prowess. "Oh jeez you accidently invented apple, I guess little timmy is getting a new classroom!"
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50110143]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] Being shafted isn't equivilent to having something bad happen to you. For example, I'm not getting shafted if I stay unemployed and don't make any money, but if I were making money and didn't get paid the amount I agreed to, then I would be getting shafted. There must be something that you have a right to, but aren't getting, in order to be shafted. That's the way I was using the word. So if I make $1 billion a year, but have to pay $500 million to the government, then I'm getting shafted. I have to pay an incredible amount into the system while also getting demonized by society. The person who doesn't make much and, therefore, has a tough time, isn't getting shafted. They have no right to the things they aren't getting. That doesn't mean it's good or easy or anything like that. There's just a difference between not having something and having something taken from you.
I just don't think the current system is sustainable either economic inequality will be addressed, or people are going to get fucking pissed off and start electing nutcases like Trump. It isn't enough to say "well they have a right to their property". It doesn't matter. People won't stand for living in eternal poverty. Something's going to give eventually.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50110380]Being shafted isn't equivilent to having something bad happen to you. For example, I'm not getting shafted if I stay unemployed and don't make any money, but if I were making money and didn't get paid the amount I agreed to, then I would be getting shafted. There must be something that you have a right to, but aren't getting, in order to be shafted. That's the way I was using the word. So if I make $1 billion a year, but have to pay $500 million to the government, then I'm getting shafted. I have to pay an incredible amount into the system while also getting demonized by society. The person who doesn't make much and, therefore, has a tough time, isn't getting shafted. They have no right to the things they aren't getting. That doesn't mean it's good or easy or anything like that. There's just a difference between not having something and having something taken from you.[/QUOTE] See, the thing is that under my system those people would still get massive prestige for that sort of thing. Infact it is literally like prestige in COD, as much as I hate to make that comparison. After someone earns a certain amounts, to be determined by an economist, the rest of the money they make gets forever etched into the leaderboard of history. Trumpet that up for a generation and you will have tons of people itching to beat the highscore. All the while society benefits, people get their 'side of the deal' - they get their rewards, and nobody starves.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50110380]Being shafted isn't equivilent to having something bad happen to you. For example, I'm not getting shafted if I stay unemployed and don't make any money, but if I were making money and didn't get paid the amount I agreed to, then I would be getting shafted. There must be something that you have a right to, but aren't getting, in order to be shafted. That's the way I was using the word. So if I make $1 billion a year, but have to pay $500 million to the government, then I'm getting shafted. I have to pay an incredible amount into the system while also getting demonized by society. The person who doesn't make much and, therefore, has a tough time, isn't getting shafted. They have no right to the things they aren't getting. That doesn't mean it's good or easy or anything like that. There's just a difference between not having something and having something taken from you.[/QUOTE] Frankly I'm having trouble following your logic here. I don't understand how you're getting shafted when you earn that much. Percentage-wise sure you're taking home less. But you're still taking home far more than anyone who earns less than you. And people that earn that much tend to be demonized specifically because they're predominantly people who just hoard money and who don't actively sink any of it back into the economy. If shit like trickle down economics actually worked people wouldn't be demonizing the rich so badly. The fact of the matter is that there [i]is[/i] an issue with the way the system works. And not just the tax system itself but the way the economy works out. All of it tends to end up making the rich richer since there's no incentive for them to spend their money on the economy and no laws to force them to pay their fair share so it can be used on stimulating the economy.
The way I see it, there are three different ways to tax (if we're talking income tax: 1. Everyone pays the same amount, say 5000$ a year. It's fair because everyone is puttin the same amount of money into the system. 2. A flat tax. It's fair because everyone pays the same proportion of their income. 3. A tiered tax. It recognizes that there is a marginal income - a minimum income to keep you alive and available to the job market (you need transportation, food and health care, etc.). The further you get from the marginal income, the larger the proportion of your income can go towards luxury. Therefore richer people get taxed more, because the marginal income makes up little or none of their total income. Poor people are basically paying a 100% tax to keep themselves alive, while rich people pay close to none. That's why they need to help out a bit more. Really rich people can even afford to have someone else nurture their fortune so it keeps generating money without any new input - money makes money, which is yet another reason why rich people should be taxed more. Personally I think it's clear which system is the fairest - to say there's no principle or morality behind "taking property" (ignoring the fact that the state takes money from everyone - either you accept the concept if a tax or you don't) from rich people is gibberish, it's just a principle based on actual real life circumstances, not a vague idea that everyone should pay the same because they get the same out of the system (except they don't, the government has a lot of functions that benefit rich people disproportionally).
It's not like anyone is arguing we just burst into rich people's homes and take everything of value, just that they bear the same level of burden (or at least close to) as people who make less.
[QUOTE=Anderan;50110556]It's not like anyone is arguing we just burst into rich people's homes and take everything of value, just that they bear the same level of burden (or at least close to) as people who make less.[/QUOTE] However that will happen in 50-75 years should people continue to be overworked underpaid and fail to be represented by government if we keep going how we're going. I don't get the logic in it at all. Either a government does its job or it doesn't. If it taxes the poor because currently the rich are "over taxed" then the poor literally starve to death. You do the same to the rich and nothing changes. There's no logical reason literally trillions should be hidden away so the wealthy can continue to assert their power globally. Votes are not equal and advertising proves this. I hate to target a generalization but conservatives rarely seem to understand the power of marketing and how much it really does change things.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50110380]Being shafted isn't equivilent to having something bad happen to you. For example, I'm not getting shafted if I stay unemployed and don't make any money, but if I were making money and didn't get paid the amount I agreed to, then I would be getting shafted. There must be something that you have a right to, but aren't getting, in order to be shafted. That's the way I was using the word. So if I make $1 billion a year, but have to pay $500 million to the government, then I'm getting shafted. I have to pay an incredible amount into the system while also getting demonized by society. The person who doesn't make much and, therefore, has a tough time, isn't getting shafted. They have no right to the things they aren't getting. That doesn't mean it's good or easy or anything like that. There's just a difference between not having something and having something taken from you.[/QUOTE] If earning $500 million after tax is getting shafted, then I'd happily be shafted every fucking day mate.
[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.[/QUOTE] Always good for the general growth of the economy? No? You could have said sometimes or mostly but always? Free trade removes tariffs which are in place to protect businesses from cheaper imports. Real world and very relevant example. Chinese steel into the UK. They're selling for cheaper to us than they sell interally. No possible way british/european industry can compete so british companies and failing because of it. Cameron blocked increased tariffs on the imported steel (not quite free trade but its an example where free trade would make the situation even worse) When there is a such a disparity between worker conditions, pollution/industry regulations you absolutely need tariffs to protect your industry and economy from cheaper products from elsewhere. So imo you are wrong. Free trade works in the eU because we also have free movement and bloc wide standards and regulations. Between this and your other comments about taxes its pretty apparent you don't really know what you are talking about. [editline]11th April 2016[/editline] [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] You can have a society which recognises peoples requirement to own property and have taxes. They're not mutually exclusive. not entirely sure what you end game is with taxes. You complaint seems to be that its unfair to tax higher earners more than lower earners. So thats either an argument for flat tax or for no tax at all. Both are utterly ridiculous and ill thought out. [quote] [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] Not quite getting this. Is it something like you should treat everyone the same? Doesn't really make sense. Anyway my moral justification for more taxes for the rich: Society needs money to run. Policing, education, healthcare, welfare and protection. (you might/will argue some of these aren't necessary but the point still stands that society needs that money). If you tax everyone at the same rate then it would be set in such a way that it either doesn't generate enough money to pay for the above or in such a way that its so high it is too much for the poor or restrictive for small growing businesses. So you do it in such a way that the more you can afford to pay the more you pay. Increasingly so for higher earners. Another way to view it. If society pays for policing, welfare, healthcare and protection then the business benefits from that. Stability from the protection/policing, cheap labour because they dont have to pay for healthcare or welfare. So because the businesses benefit from society they should be paying back into society through taxes. If you want a place where you keep everything you earn. The "sweat of your brow" (and your workers brow) then try a place like somalia. You'll be free to keep all of your profits and you can find whats its like to not have a state providing those things for you and your workers. tbh sounds like you've heard an idea and are spouting it off without actually thinking about the implication of it, or the role that society plays in general.
I think a lot of the problem stems from people forgetting that money is not valuable in and of itself, but is a means to and end, and therefore people taxing money which was only going to be stored away for the purpose of more money doesn't cost that person anything so they aren't actually losing anything but a number.
man i wish i got shafted the way rich people do. the only problem i have to face is deciding whether i get to eat or pay rent each month. thats nothing compared to having to pay 50% tax and only getting take home a a few million dollars a year. dang, i should probably chip in what meager pennies i can contribute to help those starving rich people, and stop them from getting shafted. those millionaires are getting [I]so[/I] shafted.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50110380]Being shafted isn't equivilent to having something bad happen to you. For example, I'm not getting shafted if I stay unemployed and don't make any money, but if I were making money and didn't get paid the amount I agreed to, then I would be getting shafted. There must be something that you have a right to, but aren't getting, in order to be shafted. That's the way I was using the word. So if I make $1 billion a year, but have to pay $500 million to the government, then I'm getting shafted. I have to pay an incredible amount into the system while also getting demonized by society. The person who doesn't make much and, therefore, has a tough time, isn't getting shafted. They have no right to the things they aren't getting. That doesn't mean it's good or easy or anything like that. There's just a difference between not having something and having something taken from you.[/QUOTE] How did you make that billion? Did you pay all of your employees fair wages? Did you only invest in companies that do the same? If you've cheated people to make that billion, then that billion isn't really yours is it? You've taken other people's property (their deserved wages) through force (an employer is a position of authority) knowingly and willingly. How much money would they have made if they paid their employees what they're worth?
[QUOTE=1legmidget;50111126]How did you make that billion? Did you pay all of your employees fair wages? Did you only invest in companies that do the same? If you've cheated people to make that billion, then that billion isn't really yours is it? You've taken other people's property (their deserved wages) through force (an employer is a position of authority) knowingly and willingly. How much money would they have made if they paid their employees what they're worth?[/QUOTE] the logic goes: those employees chose not to find a better job, so they deserved the meager scraps given to them by the employer. thus the employer "rightfully earned" the profits received from not paying fair wages. or something like that. either way, its fucked. employers should be paying better wages across the board in this country. employers have had their fun paying scraps, theyve earned their lifetimes of profits. its time to up pays for everyone now, so that us [I]not shafted[/I] poor people can start earning decent livings and get shafted too.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;50108767]Tax Havens are horrible because like you said, its just hoarding, instead of actually being taxed and paying back to where you run your businesses.[/QUOTE] Paying back to what? Corrupted politicians who steal and put money back to their pockets, meanwhile leaving poor to suffer, homeless to die etc... ?
Soo the US part of leak never happened?
[QUOTE=karimatrix;50111496]Soo the US part of leak never happened?[/QUOTE] I recall it being stated that the firm had a policy of not working with Americans. Hence the lack of Americans in the leak.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50111504]I recall it being stated that the firm had a policy of not working with Americans. Hence the lack of Americans in the leak.[/QUOTE] What a load of bullshit, wasn't there a quoted "Wait till you see the US part" message somewehre in here?
[QUOTE=karimatrix;50111512]What a load of bullshit, wasn't there a quoted "Wait till you see the US part" message somewehre in here?[/QUOTE] No. [editline]11th April 2016[/editline] Also, Kari, just to cut off where I know you want to take this next: This wasn't done by the U.S. Government to indict other countries. Simple: The U.S. has been pushing hard for the UK to remain in the EU, and at the forefront of the EU side has been David Cameron. Who as a result of these leaks has had massive protests against him and calls for him to resign his position, thus endangering the push for the UK to remain in the EU. Thus jeapordizing U.S. interests.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;50111512]What a load of bullshit, wasn't there a quoted "Wait till you see the US part" message somewehre in here?[/QUOTE] I remember this too somewhere...
[QUOTE=karimatrix;50111512]What a load of bullshit, wasn't there a quoted "Wait till you see the US part" message somewehre in here?[/QUOTE] The guy who said that later clarified that he didn't mean anything from US citizens or politicians was coming. He'd just meant to wait and see what comes out of it later on.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50110669]However that will happen in 50-75 years should people continue to be overworked underpaid and fail to be represented by government if we keep going how we're going. I don't get the logic in it at all. Either a government does its job or it doesn't. If it taxes the poor because currently the rich are "over taxed" then the poor literally starve to death. You do the same to the rich and nothing changes. There's no logical reason literally trillions should be hidden away so the wealthy can continue to assert their power globally. Votes are not equal and advertising proves this. I hate to target a generalization but conservatives rarely seem to understand the power of marketing and how much it really does change things.[/QUOTE] You said a few posts ago what is a solution. I have a few ideas. The simplest solution is to stop voting in people who work for corporations just so youse can have your crook in charge. Stop living in fear of a blue/red planet. Stop voting against the party youse dislike which results in piss poor candidates getting elected. The other idea for those who are broke and unemployed can try the following strategy. Any one remember this video? [video=youtube;3saU5racsGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3saU5racsGE[/video] Here what needs to be done: Get you and couple buddies to form a few districts as a means to suck money out of the local government. This will accomplish the following: Gain the group political power in some degree or another B) Establish a cash flow for the next few steps. Once you get enough cash, use that money to lobby local politicians to be allowed to create more districts for your self. Which can be used to increase more case flow for your self. Which can be used to buy up more income from the government and more authority over time. Rinse and repeat once you have enough cash flow. Now once enough cash flow is established, keep using half of it to keep establishing districts, private contracts for the governments, and ect and ect, use the other half to fund a new government you would like it done. Start giving welfare to poorer residents. Use it to rebuild roads. Use it for lawyer fees that would be hired to defend members of your group. You can also use the lawyers fees to sue people who are not of your cause at random as an act of lawfare to gain more money and scare people who do not vote for your politicians into submissions. Lawfare not needed, but is an option. Rinse and repeat. Suck all the money from old government and use it to fund the new government designed to replace the current one. If that is too much work, you can always pray.
[quote][video=youtube;3saU5racsGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3saU5racsGE[/video][/quote] I know this isn't necessarily related to your post, but it reminds me of how awful governance is in the US and that, if many of those elected positions were instead appointed, government would be so much more accountable. In the US you have municipal councillors, mayors who are sometimes separately elected, superintendents, other special district board members, county managers, sheriffs, county clerks, coroners, district attorneys (seriously?), judges (like what the fuck?), state legislators, state senators, governors and lieutenant governors, state treasurers, secretaries of state, state attorneys-general, federal congressmen/women, federal senators and the president who are all elected (plus more probably). No wonder corruption is so rampant in the US, especially at lower levels of government. At the best, you have competitive elections for obscure positions which should instead be appointed, leading to money wasted on political campaigning, and at the worst, you have elected positions where there is only one candidate on the ballot. There's either too much waste or zero accountability. Take lessons from the rest of the world. Consolidate municipalities, school districts and special districts into the counties, and have the only elected position at that level of government be a county council. Abolish the upper houses of state legislatures, especially considering that state senates aren't even allowed to proportionally represent anything other than population, so they aren't even useful in the way the US Senate is. Have the state attorneys-general, secretary and treasurer all be appointed by the governors. Governments would be so much more accountable, so much less money would be wasted, many of those now-appointed positions would be somewhat insulated from lobbying, there would be much less confusion and voters will probably care more about government when it's not so complicated. [editline]14th April 2016[/editline] Like just for reference, the only elected members here are: - Local government councillors - Sometimes a separately-elected mayor (not all of the time) - State government members of legislative assembly - State government members of legislative council (except in Queensland) - Federal members of parliament - Senators Simple
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.