[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50300634]Hah, how quaint, coming from someone like her.
Right - because Emma Watson is the #1 most harrassed woman in the entire planet, to the point she turns to do sneaky things with her money, all in the name of [i]her anonimity and privacy[/i]. I guess JLaw and Kate Upton ought to learn from her, right?
Definitely - but don't worry, the UK government won't do anything against her, that'd be discrimination, guys. If her Twitter TL is to be believed, she's the most opressed woman in the west.[/QUOTE]
What are you even saying? She doesn't deserve privacy?
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;50300655]Did she spit on your dog or something, Pretiacruento?[/QUOTE]
What do you mean, calling her out on her hypocrisy is wrong?
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50300725]What do you mean, calling her out on her hypocrisy is wrong?[/QUOTE]
[quote]Offshore companies do not publish these shareholder details. Emma receives absolutely no tax or monetary advantages from this offshore company whatsoever – only privacy.’[/quote]
What hypocrisy? Does she go around parading the statement that no woman deserves privacy? I really don't understand.
Pointing out to the fact that tons of A-list actors can perfectly live their lives without resorting to sneaky stuff.
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
I just don't buy the PR response and it feels like one is taken for a fool, that's all.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50299000]I can understand the privacy angle to an extent, but the fact she used the company to buy the property in London, is it too hard to pay from your own bank account or something. I'm unfamiliar with overseas buyers of property in the UK.[/QUOTE]
It's the British Virgin Islands. She was almost certainly using it for tax evasion. Well, it might have been one of her accountants who did it but still...
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fourier;50300678]I really don't care for tax evasions. Taxes are so fucking high, if you don't try to evade taxes somewhere, you will lose money pretty quickly.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, I'd love less taxes as well. I don't really care that if funds our healthcare, schools, roads and social security. JUST MORE MONEY FOR ME. [sp]/s[/sp]
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50300725]What do you mean, calling her out on her hypocrisy is wrong?[/QUOTE]
Nah, you just seem really angry and we don't even know whether she's actually doing anything wrong yet.
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;50300821]Nah, you just seem really angry and we don't even know whether she's actually doing anything wrong yet.[/QUOTE]
I noticed, it sounded pretty crass. Sorry about that. :P
My point still stands, though. "Privacy and anonimity", I just don't buy it.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50300634]Hah, how quaint, coming from someone like her.
Right - because Emma Watson is the #1 most harrassed woman in the entire planet, to the point she turns to do sneaky things with her money, all in the name of [i]her anonimity and privacy[/i]. I guess JLaw and Kate Upton ought to learn from her, right?
Definitely - but don't worry, the UK government won't do anything against her, that'd be discrimination, guys. If her Twitter TL is to be believed, she's the most opressed woman in the west.[/QUOTE]
So only the #1 most harassed person can take measures to try and protect their privacy?
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50300747]Pointing out to the fact that tons of A-list actors can perfectly live their lives without resorting to sneaky stuff.[/QUOTE]
That's not hypocrisy. If she said celebrities don't deserve privacy or something like that and then did something to protect hers, then that would indeed be hypocritical, but to my knowledge she hasn't.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50300634]Hah, how quaint, coming from someone like her.
Right - because Emma Watson is the #1 most harrassed woman in the entire planet, to the point she turns to do sneaky things with her money, all in the name of [i]her anonimity and privacy[/i]. I guess JLaw and Kate Upton ought to learn from her, right?
Definitely - but don't worry, the UK government won't do anything against her, that'd be discrimination, guys. If her Twitter TL is to be believed, she's the most opressed woman in the west.[/QUOTE]
You sound bitter
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;50300651]I mean, people have already been doing that to pretty much everyone else named in the papers. Not like Watson deserves a pass because people actually like her.[/QUOTE]
Pass from what?
Having an offshore depot?
Can we not make assumptions?
[QUOTE=Jacen;50300839]That's not hypocrisy. If she said celebrities don't deserve privacy or something like that and then did something to protect hers, then that would indeed be hypocritical, but to my knowledge she hasn't.[/QUOTE]No, the hypocrisy is in her masquerading as an ultra-humanitarian and worldly individual while exploiting tax havens.
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Killuah;50300879]
Pass from what?
Having an offshore depot?[/QUOTE]Exploiting tax havens. Everyone else who has been found to have one has been scrutinized and criticized, and rightfully so. She deserves it just as much.
[QUOTE]Can we not make assumptions?[/QUOTE]
Nah.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50300900]No, the hypocrisy is in her masquerading as an ultra-humanitarian and worldly individual while exploiting tax havens.
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
Exploiting tax havens. Everyone else who has been found to have one has been scrutinized and criticized, and rightfully so. She deserves it just as much.
Nah.[/QUOTE]
Because.....? Guilty by association? Is there anything about her evading taxes in there? I'll accept it as soon as there is evidence but so far all she has is an offshore account.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50300900]No, the hypocrisy is in her masquerading as an ultra-humanitarian and worldly individual while exploiting tax havens.
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
Exploiting tax havens. Everyone else who has been found to have one has been scrutinized and criticized, and rightfully so. She deserves it just as much.
Nah.[/QUOTE]
"I assume she's guilty so she must be guilty!"
Exactly what I was expecting. People will demand for people 'not to make assumptions' if it was someone they like, but not if they don't. Please be consistent.
I have a letterbox company with my stepdad, am I now guilty of tax evasion?
Well, according to people like you, if you're David Cameron, then yes.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50300984]Exactly what I was expecting. People will demand for people 'not to make assumptions' if it was someone they like, but not if they don't. Please be consistent.[/QUOTE]
For the high ranking politicians there was actual evidence of tax evasion in the papers tough??
If you're Emma Watson, then no!
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Killuah;50300995]For the high ranking politicians there was actual evidence of tax evasion in the papers tough??[/QUOTE]
Nope.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50300993]Well, according to people like you, if you're David Cameron, then yes.[/QUOTE]
What are people like me?
[QUOTE=Killuah;50300962]Because.....? Guilty by association? Is there anything about her evading taxes in there? I'll accept it as soon as there is evidence but so far all she has is an offshore account.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, just like all those billionaires who have offshore accounts for "anonymity and privacy"
Okay, that was unfair. I was talking more in general about the immediate response to Cameron's non-existent tax evasion.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50300962]Because.....? Guilty by association? Is there anything about her evading taxes in there? I'll accept it as soon as there is evidence but so far all she has is an offshore account.[/QUOTE]
That's what the company specializes in, that is what they do, that is what the Virgin Islands are used for.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50300900]No, the hypocrisy is in her masquerading as an ultra-humanitarian and worldly individual while exploiting tax havens.[/QUOTE]
My thoughts exactly. Thanks for spelling it out for everyone else who didn't get it :v:
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50301011]That's what the company specializes in, that is what they do, that is what the Virgin Islands are used for.[/QUOTE]
Again, guilty by association and assumption apparently.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50300900]No, the hypocrisy is in her masquerading as an ultra-humanitarian and worldly individual while exploiting tax havens.
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
Exploiting tax havens. Everyone else who has been found to have one has been scrutinized and criticized, and rightfully so. She deserves it just as much.
Nah.[/QUOTE]
Using an off-shore bank company doesn't automatically mean tax evasion. You're making a baseless assumption.
So if you're doing business with an offshore tax haven specialist, you're probably using them to fung sheui your closet right? You wouldn't use them for the thing they literally exist specifically for? Right?
From the database iself:
[quote]There are legitimate uses for offshore companies and trusts. We do not intend to suggest or imply that any persons, companies or other entities included in the ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database have broken the law or otherwise acted improperly. Many people and entities have the same or similar names. We suggest you confirm the identities of any individuals or entities located in the database based on addresses or other identifiable information.[/quote]
[url]https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/10152535[/url]
[QUOTE=Killuah;50301020]Again, guilty by association and assumption apparently.[/QUOTE]Coming from you, the hypocrisy is fucking golden.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50301046]So if you're doing business with an offshore tax haven specialist, you're probably using them to fung sheui your closet right? You wouldn't use them for the thing they literally exist specifically for? Right?[/QUOTE]
The probability is high but there is no evidence of any tax evasion so far.
Oh god I love that I posted this. Got the exact hypocrisy that I wanted.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50301051]Coming from you, the hypocrisy is fucking golden.[/QUOTE]
Explain?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.