
Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm - martgnz
https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/
======
noobermin
Since there are no top level comments putting this out for probably obvious
reasons, here is a supportive comment for the article.

This is what people feel in their guts when they drive out on tattered roads
and avoid going to the hospital even though they are sick, when they don't
have a real increase in wages but are working longer hours. They have the
sense that something isn't right, that there are two sets of rules and they
got the shaft when it comes to that. Where police forces are cashstrapped and
turn to civil forfeitures and ticket quotas while they see famous celebrities
and politicians get off for things magnitudes more illegal than what they've
done, whether it's smoking a joint or driving while black.

People already have a sense that things aren't fair. There's a reason why tax
reform is polling so poorly. There's a reason why most of the country thinks
taxes should be _higher_ on the wealthy and corporations. They have a feeling
that they are not seeing the rise of productivity in their own life, and they
want justice.

My SO lives in SG. She is lower middle class (going to school, father works in
a factory) and I asked her about income inequality, for there it's quite
extreme. She says it's not that bad because people there have a reasonable
standard of living; they can go to school, they can go to the doctor, they
have access to affordable food, etc. Income inequality I think isn't a bad
thing as long as the poorest among us have some basic level of livelihood. The
problem is that in the US, that isn't true, and so, people clamor for justice.

~~~
VHRanger
It's important to note that, in the US, worker __compensation__ has increased
steadily. However, __wages__ have not.

A lot of this has to do with employer provided health insurance and ballooning
healthcare costs, which are fairly specific problems to the US.

Housing and education costs have also increased much faster than overall
worker compensation.

~~~
mtremsal
Couldn't you argue that an increase in compensation driven by 'ballooning
healthcare costs' wouldn't actually improve the standard of living of workers?
Comparing wages (rather than total compensation) to cost of living would seem
more pertinent in this regard.

~~~
will_pseudonym
This may be an unpopular opinion, but new medications for difficult to treat
diseases do raise the quality of life for those populations, despite being
incredibly expensive. I'm certainly not saying they shouldn't be less
expensive, mind you. :)

~~~
mtremsal
I agree with your point, but are you also implying that 'new medications for
difficult to treat diseases' are a primary driver of 'ballooning healthcare
costs'? I don't think healthcare costs are increasing as quickly in other
developed countries while they do benefit from constant medical advances.

~~~
njarboe
Which "developed" (hopefully we can develop some more) country is creating
these medical advances? One might guess the US, but I don't really know. Any
good studies I could read?

~~~
orwin
Well, if we are talking about recent great medical advances, i think Spain and
France are leading right now with the discovery of CRISPR. And i'm pretty
happy about this, if it were discovered by an american pharmaceutical company,
no other laboratory would have even heard of this before a patented product
hit the market, and every research on the subject would be subject to a patent
too.

------
cletus
I can't help but think of the GOP's tax "reform" that is a hot topic in the US
right now. I say "reform" because there's absolutely no reform about it. It's
a tax cut for billionaires bought and paid for by the GOP donor class. The
paranoia of religious conservatives certainly elected the GOP but make no
mistake: they don't give a shit about anyone but the donor class, often
personified by the Koch brothers.

The carried interest tax credit is noticeably absent from the House plan.

The problem with any kind of true reform is that every exception and rule
benefits someone and they'll lobby hard to defend it.

As for the corporate tax cut, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it if it
came with enforcement against the offshoring (via transfer pricing) of profits
in low tax regimes. But of course it doesn't.

Bringing this back to the Paradise Papers and other similar leaks, the problem
I have is there's increasingly an ultra-rich class who benefitted greatly by
the political stability in places like the developed world but have somehow
convinced themselves that they shouldn't have to pay for it.

There was a time in my life when I was against the estate tax on philosophical
grounds. That time is long gone. It really is a silver spoon tax. If anything
it should be higher.

I really wish I understood why someone with $5b thought themselves above
paying for schools, roads, hospitals and police. What really is the practical
difference between having $5b or $10b?

Luckily the House plan is pretty much DOA in the Senate.

~~~
nodesocket
> It's a tax cut for billionaires bought and paid for by the GOP donor class

I am a small business owner setup as a LLC single member company and the new
cap will be a positive for me. It will reduce my tax burden allowing me to buy
more software from companies, hire, expand, increase advertising spending,
etc. I am a very real case, and there are lots of other small business owners
like me who are certainly not billionaires. In fact most bay area tech company
employees make more than I do. I find it somewhat hypocritical that employees
at Google and Facebook that are making 200K+ are complaining about tax reform.

~~~
rsynnott
Money that you spend on buying software, hiring etc isn’t generally taxable
anyway. A business is generally taxed on income, not revenue.

You also have to ask, where is the money coming from? In this case, it would
appear to be through radically increasing the deficit. There will ultimately
be consequences to that (for instance, in a few years, as the US’s credit
rating comes under pressure, increased repayments may have to be met with
increases on income tax, which you will pay).

~~~
nodesocket
> Money that you spend on buying software, hiring etc isn’t generally taxable
> anyway. A business is generally taxed on income, not revenue.

But reducing my quarterly and annual tax liabilies allows me to spend more on
these things because there is more cash for the business at the end of the
day.

~~~
astrodust
If you're growing your company based on cash-flow you're slowly strangling
your company to death.

If it's profitable, leverage it. You don't have to go nuts and borrow
millions, but if you can generate a better return on debt than the interest
rate, which shouldn't be too hard given today's interest rates, you can build
your business faster.

If you're aggressively expanding your company you'll be channelling any
profits back into it, so you're going to barely break-even from a tax
perspective and your tax payments will be negligible.

If you're doing this and not seeing the right tax benefits already, get a
better accountant.

~~~
nodesocket
I've seen this "get a better accountant" argument posted on HN quite a bit.
But, aren't liberals outraged about the tax loopholes for the "weathly"? We
shouldn't need the loopholes, just reduce the rates.

~~~
rsynnott
No, not in this case. It’s very deliberate that companies pay tax on profit,
not revenue; it’s not really a loophole. This gives the company an incentive
to put the money into growth rather than taking profit and paying dividends,
especially when it’s smallish.

You could theoretically have a system where companies pay tax on revenue, but
realistically it’d cause massive upheaval and greatly disincentivise starting
new businesses and growing current ones.

------
mrleiter
It's the wrong angle. One should not look at corporations as the moral
saviours. As Supreme Court Judge Learned Hand once said:

"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing 851*851 sinister
in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody
does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to
pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary
contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant."[1]

Rather, it is the governments of the world we should be going at if we want
this behaviour to change. But then again, it is always easier to find a fat
scapegoat with a shiny appearance.

[1][https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=628482160657957...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6284821606579578514)
(last paragraph)

~~~
pyrale
> It's the wrong angle. One should not look at corporations as the moral
> saviours. [...] Rather, it is the governments of the world we should be
> going at if we want this behaviour to change.

Let us pretend that corporations have no influence over laws and governments,
and merely play a game they had no hand in designing.

~~~
joelrunyon
So the corporation is still the symptom.

What we should be doing is insulating the government from outside influence.

~~~
danharaj
A government insulated from outside influence no longer governs.

~~~
dmix
Just because politicians stop creating opportunities for mega-corps and
wealthy individuals to gain unfair advantages in the economy doesn't stop them
from writing all legislation.

Corporations/wealthy individuals can't exploit power which doesn't exist.
Adding more complexity and protections to prevent this has repeatedly failed
and usually just creates more loopholes, the solution is simplification of new
laws and reduction of old poorly written laws (adding more complexity has
historically been a one way street in modern government:
[https://i.imgur.com/pe64eNd.png](https://i.imgur.com/pe64eNd.png)).

And if lawmakers can't write regulations, legislation, or tax policy which
doesn't give particular people/organizations an advantage, by side effect or
directly, then they shouldn't write them at all - or just accept that there
will be people who sidestep it.

But it's ridiculous to say this will prevent politicians from governing. Yes,
it will limit the types of legislation and force them to consider the full
implications, but that's a good thing.

This is why people support things like basic income and flat tax. Removing
complexity, bureaucracy, and direct government involvement in picking
winners/losers. Everyone knows the devil is in the details when you're trying
to circumvent a system or take advantage of it.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Tangential: interesting how, through using a weird vertical scale, the image
you linked to weakens its own point. I suppose if the Y axis was consistent,
it wouldn't look as if tax law expansion slowed down significantly in recent
times.

~~~
dmix
Agreed, I hate logarithmic graphs, as they can be highly manipulative, but
this one was even worse as it would be _more_ persuasive if it didn't oddly
divide the years. I did in fact look for a better one before I linked to it
but I couldn't find one. I should make my own version one day...

------
wu-ikkyu
It's funny how the people of Russia and the US are framed as being such great
enemies when in reality many of the rulers of both countries have more common
interests with each other than they do with the citizens of their own nations.

~~~
danharaj
It's not an accident.

~~~
wallace_f
Putin's utility function maximization calculus is clearly benefited from
undermining his own people, and there is a lot of evidence to support that.

The US plutocracy is no different. Also a lot of evidence: the actions of the
NSA, CIA, War on Drugs, police militarizarion, military-industrial-
congressional-complex... All cannot be explained otherwise.

I think in the US, they're just a lot more clever at it. However cooky it
might seem, there is some evidence coming out that extremist rallies have been
organized by unknown powers, possibly sometimes Russian. A lot of the racial
tension is probably not by accident. I saw this on the reddit conspiracy sub,
and frankly I think it's a good point to be made:
[https://i.redd.it/lgdyy6dpjyfz.jpg](https://i.redd.it/lgdyy6dpjyfz.jpg)

~~~
RonanTheGrey
The Koch brothers and associated organizations have also been known to fund
both sides of extremist events and encourage them to fight each other.

At a glance, I would say pretty much all of today's hot button issues:
abortion, race, gender equality, treatment of sex offenders, treatment of
prisoners & released felons, terrorism, the current spate of sexual assault
accusations...

All of it has roots at a level where the rich and powerful benefit from
keeping people fighting with each other and begin terrified of the next boogey
man instead of paying attention to the "powers that be." And it's simply
because the potential benefit of doing so is unbelievably high, it effectively
has no ceiling: consolidation of power, finance, and resources as an end goal
so that what, 8 people? control almost all the world's wealth, is a pretty
compelling reason.

~~~
wallace_f
Yea. Every election in the US there are the same groups of people that win:
[https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/trump-makes-america-
gold...](https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/trump-makes-america-goldmans-
again-maga/)

It's amazing anyone can see a homeless person and feel disgust, "do something
productive you immoral scum!" But see an elite banker and not think the same
thing, but worse.

Every group of leaders faces the quandry of the ambitions of those to usurp
them. That's why tyranny has always been a constant in human history.

------
olivermarks
At this point in history I'd argue that nation states have never been weaker.
The idea that 'Russia' is behind anything is somewhat erroneous: powerful
mobsters/oligarchs who have been enriched by looting Russia and other nation
states and float their money offshore are 'Russia' in this context. That money
is laundered into the western world. The concept of a capitalist 'empire' that
knows no nation state is often discussed by excellent journalists such as Abby
Martin. The people who make up this 'empire' \- a mix of Saudis, Zionists,
Asian oligarchs, old euro money and various other oligarchs and mobsters
arguably run the world....

~~~
fjsolwmv
You lost me when you fell back to racist conspiracy theories. What the hell do
you think "Zionist" means?

~~~
olivermarks
'zionist' \- far right wing offshore mobster hiding behind Judaism in this
context

~~~
wallace_f
I'm not sure what to think? Joe Biden told the media "I am a Zionist."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo-
UXZ-1ups&app=desktop](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo-UXZ-1ups&app=desktop)

------
allenz
The leak shows substantial Russian cash going to US commerce secretary Wilbur
Ross; Twitter and Facebook; and Arsenal and Everton. It also shows the usual
tax avoidance by powerful people including Lord Ashcroft and Trudeau financier
Stephen Bronfman.

~~~
BatFastard
What will it take for people to say NO MORE

~~~
heurist
It's starting but to truly take that stand generally requires major life
changes, and those changes take time to come into fruition if they happen at
all. I'm trying to save enough money to escape the rat race and build
technology and organizations that at least I think could help level the
political playing field, but unexpected expenses come up and savings seem to
move less than they should.

------
dboreham
Imagining people in meeting rooms at law firms discussing if they can go back
to paper-only workflow...

Also, this I guess confirms the policy I heard from several heads of
accounting depts in the 90's that they did not want their computers connected
to the Internet..

~~~
gcb0
dont have to go that far, or that up.

head of IT for a french firm that does business over here had to contract with
some small company for a invoice system because the regional manager claimed
the centra one from HQ didnt accommodate the local laws. it was a lie, because
the other vendor has even less compliance. nobody but the regional manager has
any idea of the real reasons. but I bet its not in the interests of the
company, or tax compliance.

------
jahaja
The sad thing about this is the fatigue caused by the whole "well, of course
they're cheating, they always do.". When the powerful/wealthy get caught the
result seems to be just further apathy, rather than outrage with consequences.
I wonder how long this can continue.

~~~
detcader
I think many hoped for a path forward in Bernie Sanders, but the Democratic
Party kneecapped that...

~~~
brohoolio
Hillary won by 3 million votes. I know it’s a republican / Russian talking
point to keep pointing out this division.

~~~
detcader
Is Donna Brazile a Republican, RU operative, or both?

------
tomkat0789
These leaks are juicy and all, but have our oligarchs had to change anything
as a result of them? What were the big effects of the Panama Papers?

~~~
fragmede
No, it didn't cause a Fight Club/Mr. Robot-style overnight collapse of
capitalism, but it did force a number of politicians and business people in a
number of different countries to step down and face fines. Pakistan in
particular disqualified their Prime Minister, in what was called a "defining
moment" for the country.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Panama_Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_Panama_Papers)

~~~
fjsolwmv
So, a few scapegoats got turned out, an business as usual continued.

------
nickthemagicman
My parents always taught me to be honest and care about those around you. The
older I got the more I realized that was mal-adaptive behavior in capitalistic
society.

The real goal of capitalism is exploit or be exploited.

~~~
icelancer
> The real goal of capitalism is exploit or be exploited.

The real goal of capitalism is to increase the amount of capital available.
This fundamentally is not possible via exploitation alone. Capitalism - nor
the economy - is not a zero-sum game. This type of simplistic thinking makes
people dismiss real criticisms over the real-world implementation of American
capitalism.

~~~
nickthemagicman
'The real goal of capitalism is to increase the amount of capital available.
This fundamentally is not possible via exploitation alone.'

The south built an entire economy based on 'exploitation alone' in the early
1800's....

You need to qualify your statement: 'The real goal of capitalism is to
increase the amount of capitalism available'. Available to who? humanity at
large? Nope. Capitalists don't share their wealth. Capitalism increases
capital for the people who control the capital. See every economic study made
in the past ten years. The middle and working class exist to serve the
capitalists aims. Slavery in a pretty package.

------
haaen
Comment from economist Tyler Cowen when the same group of journalists released
the Panama papers:

Was it wrong to hack and leak the Panama Papers?

Let’s say a group of criminal defense lawyers kept a database of their
confidential conversations with their clients. That would include clients
charged with murder, robbery, DUI, drug abuse, and so on. In turn, a hacker
would break into that database and post the information from those
conversations on Wikileaks. Of course a lot of those conversations would
appear to be incriminating because — let’s face it — most of the people who
require defense attorneys on criminal charges are in fact guilty. When asked
why the hack was committed, the hacker would say “Most of those people are
guilty. I want to make sure they do not escape punishment.”

How many of us would approve of that behavior? Keep in mind the hacker is
spreading the information not only to prosecutors but to the entire world, and
outside of any process sanctioned by the rule of law. The hacker is not backed
by the serving of any criminal charges or judge-served warrants.

Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status,
as is the case with the Panama Papers. Furthermore most of those individuals
probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their
tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. Admittedly, very often
the underlying tax laws should be changed, just as we should repeal the
deduction for mortgage interest too. But in the meantime we are not justified
in stealing information about those people, even if some of them are evil and
powerful, as is indeed the case for homeowners too.

Once again, politics isn’t about policy, it is about which groups should rise
and fall in relative status. And many people believe the wealthy should fall
in status, and so they will entertain the morality of all crimes and threats
against them. These revelations will of course lead to some subsequent cases
of blackmail, against Chinese officials for one group.

I had tweeted “Are your views on privacy and #PanamaPapers consistent? Just
asking…” and my goodness what a response, positive and negative. Most
interesting of all, many people had never pondered the question before.
Somehow “good things” such as “privacy” and “transparency” cannot stand in
such conflict because all good things, like all bad things, must come
together.

(...)

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/04/the...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/04/the-
morality-of-panama-papers.html)

~~~
SOLAR_FIELDS
I would say this is a false equivocation to the extent that the "database"
that the author referenced in beginning of the metaphor should not include
victimless crimes such as "drug abuse".

The author also assumes that there would be a de-facto backlash against the
"hacker"'s behavior. I don't think so. If the justice system is "innocent
until proven guilty", and these people are proven guilty in a court of law by
evidence (even if such evidence is blasted to the world by this 'hacker'),
there is no difference between whether they make $10 or $10 million per year.

This does invoke a bit of a quandary as referenced earlier over whether
certain victimless crimes should actually be classified as crimes, but I
believe that is orthogonal to the conversation to some extent.

The stronger argument was mentioned below: Do you as a citizen strive to
minimize your tax burden to the most extent it makes sense and is legal? If
yes, then why should it be any different whether you make $10 or $10 million
in a year? Is there some sort of arbitrary monetary amount where you are
supposed to make this moral decision "oh I made enough money now, it's time to
pay more taxes than I am legally required to". If so, when is it? If not, then
the tax code and subsequently the government are the systems you need to look
at if legal lowering of the rich man's tax burden is something you find
reprehensible.

~~~
toyg
_> Do you as a citizen strive to minimize your tax burden to the most extent
it makes sense and is legal?_

The problem is that regular citizens do not have access to means of minimizing
their taxes to the extent that the wealthy have. It's been shown over and over
again that corporations and wealthy individuals can shrink their tax rates to
be as low as 2%. Nobody else can get that low. That is the fundamental
problem: that in practice there is a law for the rich and one for everybody
else.

This is not unlike the sort of privileges European aristocracy used to enjoy
up to the XVIII century. It took a number of violent uprising to change that
state of things, let's hope it won't be necessary this time.

~~~
SOLAR_FIELDS
I don’t disagree with you at all. I wholeheartedly agree. The point still
stands though. If you or I as middle or lower class schmucks could lower our
tax burdens to 2%, wouldn’t we as well? Or is it some arbitrary number where
it’s like “ok I feel like I need to contribute to society now”. If the answer
to the above is non-arbitrary, the fault lies with the people that invented
such tax code in the first place.

~~~
toyg
_> Or is it some arbitrary number where it’s like “ok I feel like I need to
contribute to society now”_

Some cultures do have such arbitrary numbers codified in their religions, as
it happens - 10% for Muslims, 20% for some Christians, etc.

Secularly speaking, tax law in most countries is laid down with certain public
thresholds, defined through open process by democratically-elected
representatives, and _everyone_ is supposed to abide by them; but the rich can
afford armies of professionals poking and prodding these laws until they find
loopholes, contradictions and secret hatches. Obviously the legislator should
carry _some_ of the burden for not explicitly forbidding these escamotages;
but it's similarly obvious that this sort of activity has reached levels that,
even where ostensibly legal, are patently immoral and against the spirit of
the law, and that's not the legislator's fault.

In a lot of cases, these activities are _not_ even legal, in fact; they are
just not prosecuted because authorities lack manpower for enforcement. This is
why public leaks often results in new charges being brought forward: because
someone else did the job and the taxman can piggyback on that. Responsibility
for illegal activities lies squarely with the people engaging in them.

------
nevi-me
Are there any downloadable documents one could sift through? I'm interested in
finding which individuals and politicians in my home country are implicated;
this coming a at a time where our sitting president is guilty of fraud,
racketeering, corruption, tax evasion (hasn't submitted a tax return since
1995).

Civil society and citizens are working behind the scenes to put pressure on
the remaining good people in the system. This information could help. Thanks.

------
NN88
FYI HN:

Jeffery Carr wrote about Milner's ties to the FSB/KGB in 2011

[http://archive.li/2Lv1b#selection-549.14-549.39](http://archive.li/2Lv1b#selection-549.14-549.39)

...and got fired from Forbes Magazine for writing about it...

[https://twitter.com/JamesFourM/status/915361529012289536](https://twitter.com/JamesFourM/status/915361529012289536)

Theres certainly a major back story here.

~~~
stevenwoo
There are 95 news organizations sharing the 13.4 million documents so it would
be hard for anyone to hide it now.

------
avar
A publication using "the 1%" in the context of "the global elite" means what
exactly? A salary slightly north of $30k/yr lands you in the global elite club
of the 1%.

~~~
java_script
Are you an AI? If so, try this on for size:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech)

~~~
viraptor
It's also dangerous. There's going to be people looking up what 1% wealth is.
Repeat it enough times and large enough groups will start taking it literally.
Just like any social welfare improvements cause disagreement these days in
some circles because socialism is bad, and it's halfway to communism, and
that's terrible.

------
dmitriid
Remember Panama papers? The outcome of those was..? Nothing? Or close to
nothing? The same will happen to Paradise Papers.

There will be a "public outcry", there will be multiple opinion pieces,
someone will create a nice website to show you cool infographics based on
data.

A year from now everyone will forget about this ever happening. Which is a
shame.

~~~
Synaesthesia
It's up to us to make a change.

------
pera
Appleby claims these documents were obtained during a security incident last
year:

[https://www.applebyglobal.com/news/news-2017/media-
coverage-...](https://www.applebyglobal.com/news/news-2017/media-coverage-of-
the-offshore-sector.aspx)

------
stanislavb
I like how they are using neo4j to untangle the relationships...

------
coolgoose
And as always, nothing is going to happen.

~~~
xexers
While it's true that about 99% of people listed in the panama papers got off
scott free... There were still some serious consequences for some... and those
consequences might just be enough to deter.

~~~
paranoia101
"about 99% of people listed in the panama papers got off scott free"...

...and the journalist who triggered the investigation got killed! Global
elites, fuck yeah!

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-
bomb...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb-kills-
panama-papers-journalist)

~~~
r3bl
Some insights from a person who has worked for two years for an investigative
journalism organization (that was a part of both Panama Papers and Paradise
Papers, but I left my position months before Paradise Papers):

If someone's gonna kill an investigative journalist, he's not gonna do that
while she's reporting on the story. That would be too dumb and raise way too
many eyebrows. Instead, the attacker will usually let it cool down and wait,
months (or possibly years) after the piece was published. Only when the thing
is in the far past will he attack. Plus, the observation and preparation of
the attack doesn't happen in a day[0].

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that, whoever was behind the attack, was
either a) stupid or b) a person that she reported on a relatively long time
ago.

[0] For a case in point, take a look at how precise was the action in which a
Belarus journalist was killed in 2016:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSa5OFCkf4&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSa5OFCkf4&feature=youtu.be&t=3m56s)
(the entire video is 49 minutes long, but the relevant part is about two
minutes long and it starts where the link leads to)

------
jorblumesea
Trump was one of the dirtiest candidates in history. How a rich oligarch
billionaire got elected as a blue collar populist is one for the history
books. These scandals will haunt him for the rest of his political career, as
it's just so easy to dig up dirt on him. Almost every business deal in his
past has been marred by some kind of controversy. The man is a walking scandal
magnet.

------
alekseypo
On one end of the scale the benefit of transparency and on the other the
inevitable subversion of these types of info dumps in the future, as a way to
manipulate public opinion...

------
baki
The Trump foundation sold 20% of US uranium assets and earned 145 million
dollar on it. The Russians passed it on to the very peaceful Iranians, who are
don't building nuclear warheads and ballistic missles. Trum ordered a fake
damning dossier on Hillary Clinton from the Russians... etc... etc... etc

------
muxator
The search interface is buggy. When searching names from some nations, it
shows people from other countries.

------
detcader
Hoarding money like this is highly immoral. Just give most of it away:
[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-
im...](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-immoral-to-
be-rich)

~~~
bearbearbear
All the money that rich people give away comes out of your wallet in the form
of tax deductions.

~~~
alaaibrahim
Could you explain why is that the case, I've heard that multiple times, but
for me the math doesn't work out.

If I earn an amount of (x+y), I would get taxed on (x+y), but if I donate x
money, I would get taxed on y, but I've already paid x in donations, so unless
there is something fishy going on with the x donations part, it would make
sense for someone to not donate, as they are already being taxed on y, and the
taxes on x would be less than x.

So how are the rich making these donations out of my wallet?

~~~
Clubber
A lot of times, the donations are something they would already be doing. For
example, instead of throwing away a couch, which someone was planning on
doing, they could donate it to Good Will and get a write-off for the amount
the couch was worth (typically they get to fill that in). This also works for
much larger things like buildings or land. So if someone owned a parcel of
land that they paid $100K for, used for a long time, but then the neighborhood
was blighted or something, they could then donate it. It might be worth $30K
on the market, but they could say it was $100K and write off the entire
amount, which would earn them $36K vs. the $30K plus sales costs to sell it
outright.

There are guidelines from the IRS, but they are easy to manipulate:

[https://www.irs.gov/publications/p561](https://www.irs.gov/publications/p561)

 _Arm 's-length offer. An arm's-length offer to buy the property close to the
valuation date may help to prove its value if the person making the offer was
willing and able to complete the transaction. To rely on an offer, you should
be able to show proof of the offer and the specific amount to be paid. Offers
to buy property other than the donated item will help to determine value if
the other property is reasonably similar to the donated property._

So that person could get a few friends or associates to make offers on the
property for $100K and that would generally be enough to prove value at $100K
using the arm's-length valuation method.

Also, another example that Trump did was make donations to an organization
that held meetings in his hotel. Using your example, Trump made x+y, then
donated x to a charity that then spent x on Trump's hotel, so trump is paying
taxes on y even though he earned x+y (it works out a little differently, but
that's the gist).

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-
don...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-
shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#348762546b4a)

~~~
alaaibrahim
Thanks, that's a nice explanation.

------
return0
Its not clear what "secrets" they have revealed. Appleby seems to be an
"advising company", so presumably no Trust data have been exposed. We might as
well be looking at something we knew to be public all along. Is this really
serious?

~~~
patall
Example: If the british monarch exploits her very poorest subjects by
promoting ill-adviced (vacuum cleaner) loans, that is a 'secret' that has been
uncovered. And in a normal political environment the queen should step down or
at least donate most of the involved trusts money to the people hurt by it.

------
bitL
If a company doesn't use these tax-avoidance means, it becomes uncompetitive
and gets eaten by those, that do. Moreover, there is a wealth of tax
optimizing consultants with great knowledge of holes one gets access to once
their revenue reaches $x00,000,000, often sanctioned by governing bodies. So
if one makes it to the club, the easy way to stay there is to adopt the same
disgusting practices like everybody else and shoot the ladder behind
themselves. The rest of the world can live in favelas, nobody at the top
really cares. I doubt we can't figure out a proper system to track every
single transaction and make sure it's taxed properly, but there is no will or
there are always some convoluted backdoors proper consulting companies install
through lobbying and make available to "donors".

~~~
fauigerzigerk
_> If a company doesn't use these tax-avoidance means, it becomes
uncompetitive and gets eaten by those, that do._

I don't understand why that would be the case.

~~~
TomMarius
Well, why do they do it? To save costs. If they have lower costs than you
doing the same thing, it will eventually cost you your business.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Taxes don't affect competitiveness much. They only affect profitability,
because any money they use to compete and any money they never earn because
they compete by lowering prices isn't taxed anyway. They only pay taxes on
profits. Taxes are not a business expense.

There is perhaps an indirect link to competitiveness in that a company can
retain profits and use them down the road to take over other companies, which
may strengthen their position in the market. Another such indirect link is
that profitability affects the company's ability to raise capital.

But what I believe is that it's not so much the company itself that cannot
afford to pay higher taxes, it's the management team. If a CEO doesn't
optimize taxes for the benefit of owners/investors, that CEO could be replaced
by someone who does.

------
daveheq
I always wonder about the timing of these releases... Are they really released
as soon as possible after they're found, or just piecemeal when it's revealers
find it most politically convenient?

------
hacker_9
So how bad is this exactly? I'm all for equality, but the world is built on
the game known as capitalism, and this stuff exists because people optimise
their playing strategy.

I know the starting conditions can be unfair, but we kinda need people at the
top to make the whole thing work. If the world runs on money, then there will
always be a poorer place that wants to attract the rich, and so havens are
born. Let's not forget the rich spend a lot of money in their own country too,
which is an essential part of a thriving economy.

~~~
killjoywashere
The havens are not the issue. The fact that YCombinator start-ups are funded
by Russian oligarchs (via Milner) is an issue. The fact the the US Commerce
Secretary is in business with Putin's family is an issue. The fact that
Facebook and Twitter are funded by Russian oligarchs (again, via Milner) is an
issue. There are a lot of issues here.

These oligarchs have no problem killing people wholesale. You want to give
them a positive ROI on their investment? WTF?

~~~
charlesdm
I'm pretty sure plenty of people wouldn't care. If someone offers you $100m
for your business today (Ford), and a Russian company offered you $300m
(Gazprom) -- guess which one most would sell to?

Facebook might not like it now, but at the time, you could be quite certain
they didn't care.

~~~
pjc50
I'm not up on the Magnitsky act, but does it make a difference if it's illegal
for you to take the $300m from Gazprom?

~~~
charlesdm
Only if you're an American. Afaik it doesn't apply to Europeans and others
based outside of the US. Now, that said, if there are sanctions that cannot be
avoided then obviously that would be a clear no. Assume companies without
sanctions in this example.

~~~
killjoywashere
EU, Canada, and probably others now have an equivalent of the Magnitsky Act.

------
Pffffffff
The way the icij acts, is like 4chan with the Adult Friend Finder dumper.

------
baki
Ridiculous

------
jMrL
:/

------
hhtoyou
Thanks !

------
NN88
The Facebook and Twitter ties to Gazprom and VTB need to be investigated.
ASAP.

------
mindcrime
Let's not act like tax avoidance is some Big Deal. Taxation is theft to begin
with, so there's no reason to begrudge people who are protecting their assets.

The _real_ question we should be applying our intellects to is "how do we fund
the things that are currently funded by taxation, which are actually necessary
/ desirable, without using violence or the threat of violence?"

~~~
Clubber
>Taxation is theft to begin with

How is taxation theft exactly?

~~~
mindcrime
Rather than repeat what's already been said many times before, I'll just refer
you here:

[https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/is-taxation-
theft](https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/is-taxation-theft)

~~~
Clubber
No one likes paying taxes but calling it theft is intellectually dishonest and
hyperbolic that attempts to paint taxation as immoral for people who like to
think emotionally rather than rationally.

I mean you happily use the services that taxes provide. Police, the legal
system, roads, schools, libraries, anything created using the legal system,
roads, schools or libraries, fuel exploration subsidies, research, etc. To use
your hyperbolic analogy, using them without paying for them would be theft,
therefore trying to mark taxation as immoral is trying to get out of paying
for the services you use, which is in itself immoral and attempted theft.

Finally, if you don't like paying taxes that much, you have a couple of
options: a. you can not make any money, or b. you can get a boat and live in
international waters. Ironically, you would still be benefiting from services
provided through taxation, namely sea lane protection from piracy provided by
the US Navy, paid for with taxes.

~~~
mindcrime
_No one likes paying taxes but calling it theft is intellectually dishonest_

No, calling it anything _but_ theft is "intellectually dishonest".

 _I mean you happily use the services that taxes provide. Police, the legal
system, roads, schools, libraries, anything created using the legal system,
roads, schools or libraries, fuel exploration subsidies, research, etc._

No, I don't _happily_ use any of those things. I grudgingly use (some of) them
because A. the State usually doesn't allow any other choices, and B. my stolen
money was used to pay for them, so I might as well derive some benefit from
it. But since the initial "transaction" was not voluntary, it's clearly theft.

~~~
Clubber
It's part of the citizenship deal. Renounce your citizenship or make less than
$10K a year. Pretty simple. By retaining your citizenship and just complaining
about it, you are accepting the deal. The document about taxes is the
constitution. It's an opt-out agreement. You got a free ride up until 18, and
can opt out anytime you wish.

 _Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and
collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States._

------
charlesdm
Honestly, nothing new. Does anyone still care? Action is being taken on an
international level to combat avoidance, but it takes time. These types of
offshore vehicles offer privacy and serve various specific purposes (e.g. tax
transparent international investing). Yes, they can be used for illegal
purposes (sometimes), but frankly that seems like the minority to me.

What worries me a bit though, is the fact that heaps of confidential
information is just thrown online, without significant filtering. Even
completely legal situations are published, but since the average joe has no
understanding of tax law, he'll assume these people are doing illegal things.
Attorney-Client privilege?

~~~
UweSchmidt
I knew I'd see a comment such like this when I clicked on the comments:
"Nothing to see here, move along..."

~~~
charlesdm
It's fun to go through this to see how people are structuring their business,
but most people respect the tax laws of the country they're living in. And if
they're not breaking any laws, this honestly shouldn't be publicized. In the
same way I don't think your personal income should be made public for the
whole world to see.

~~~
UweSchmidt
Didn't read any of that stuff (as you said, probably lots of personal
information that is none of my business).

However elsewhere it has been suggested that there could a systematic tax
evasion going on, weakening the assumtions of macroeconomics about
consumption, taxation and investment and how it all plays together nicely,
concepts of fairness, a hope for some "trickle down"...

Sounds like a topic worth discussing, now that it has been voted to the front
page?

