| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Panama Papers https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11630 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Müs [ Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Panama Papers |
Looks like a ton of rich europeans got caught hiding their cookies in offshore BVI cookie jars. Also, ties to terr'sm. Thoughts? |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Panama Papers |
|
|
|
| Author: | Talya [ Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, you'd get the impression from reading the reactions to this that the people involved in it had done something illegal. A few thoughts: - Tax Avoidance is not a crime. Tax Evasion is a crime. Tax Avoidance is the practice of keeping your money invested in things and places not subject to taxation (or subject to less taxation). This isn't wrong, it's simply smart. Putting money into a sheltered account like your 401K is tax avoidance. That's not immoral or criminal. - Nothing Mossack Fonseca offers as a service is illegal. Privacy and anonymity are valuable resources that generally cost money. The wealthy should take advantage of these things if they can. So governments are making a very big deal out of this, because governments hate the privacy of private citizens. Governments want to know everything, and ensure they take their piece of the pie. So all of that get countered with, "So how do we keep the bad guys from taking advantage of those same services?" Yes, terrorists and organized crime would, of course, make use of such services, and could easily do so without a firm like Mossack Fonseca even knowing that they're assisting illegal organizations. (Of course, if it could be found the firm were knowingly aiding and abetting terrorism or organized crime, that's a whole new issue. Edit: And it does appear this is true. That is seriously problematic -- they need to do a much better job of screening their customers.) Of course, the same arguments can be made for and against wire tapping, strong encryption, and other privacy vs. security issues all the time. Some people say a balance needs to be struck, I just happen to think that that balance needs to be as far toward the individual private citizen as possible. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There are certainly some indications of things being very illegal, that should be investigated. The easiest evidence of wrongdoing that you can find is in a series of transactions. For example, in the report I heard there was an asset purchased for $1, and sold 3 months later for $100 million or so. Pretty blatant money laundering. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimf ... ma_papers/ |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: For example, in the report I heard there was an asset purchased for $1, and sold 3 months later for $100 million or so. Pretty blatant money laundering. Money laundering is attempting to disguise the illegal origin of money, not artificially inflating the value of things. Quote: According to the United States Treasury Department: Money laundering is the process of making illegally-gained proceeds (i.e. "dirty money") appear legal (i.e. "clean"). Typically, it involves three steps: placement, layering and integration. First, the illegitimate funds are furtively introduced into the legitimate financial system. Then, the money is moved around to create confusion, sometimes by wiring or transferring through numerous accounts. Finally, it is integrated into the financial system through additional transactions until the "dirty money" appears "clean."[3] The transaction in question might or might not be money laundering depending on the origin of the funds in question. It might or might not also be illegal for some other reason, but artificially distorting the value of assets is not, in and of itself, money laundering. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Here's a shipment of cocaine, and $1 in exchange for that house. It's certainly something to look into. That sort of profit margin on an asset smells bad. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Here's a shipment of cocaine, and $1 in exchange for that house. It's certainly something to look into. That sort of profit margin on an asset smells bad. It is without a doubt suspicious, but it is quite possible it could be illegal in all sorts of ways besides just money laundering - or not illegal at all. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Tue Apr 05, 2016 1:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Panama Papers |
Every year I (along with every other one of the 50,000+ employees at the bank I work for) have to take an "AML" (Anti-Money Laundering) refresher course on what money laundering is and how to spot it, and what the laws and company regulations surrounding it are. As I work in their IT department, I'm never in a position to actually need this training. However, if I somehow acquire a large source of illicit funding, I am now fairly well equipped to hide its origin. |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This story is nothing more than: "Be t3h OUTRAGE!!!!11!one11!!!1! about other people's wealth!!!" I will not be. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rynar wrote: This story is nothing more than: "Be t3h OUTRAGE!!!!11!one11!!!1! about other people's wealth!!!" I will not be. Nah. Its more like "PAY YOUR **** TAXES YOU RICH ****!!!" The rest of us have to. Especially if we can't afford to offload our moneys to shell corporations in tax havens. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Müs wrote: Rynar wrote: This story is nothing more than: "Be t3h OUTRAGE!!!!11!one11!!!1! about other people's wealth!!!" I will not be. Nah. Its more like "PAY YOUR **** TAXES YOU RICH ****!!!" The rest of us have to. Especially if we can't afford to offload our moneys to shell corporations in tax havens. I highly doubt much of the Panama Papers will result in people being charged with Tax Evasion. Because they didn't. Tax Avoidance is legal, Tax Evasion is not. The primary concern is the illegal activities that may have been financed this way. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Müs wrote: Nah. Its more like "PAY YOUR **** TAXES YOU RICH ****!!!" The rest of us have to. Especially if we can't afford to offload our moneys to shell corporations in tax havens. There's plenty of ways you can avoid taxes too. The best one even involves having sex; much more exciting that offshoring. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, and not only do you selfish mother **** get a tax break, but the rest of us have to fund schools for your crotchspawn. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: Yeah, and not only do you selfish mother **** get a tax break, but the rest of us have to fund schools for your crotchspawn. A) Get married B) **** C) have kids D) get tax breaks You have no one to blame but yourself here. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Or, you could pay your fair share, rather than foist the cost of your children off onto everybody else. |
|
| Author: | Screeling [ Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Only the rich have to pay their fair share. It's clearly in my social contract that I don't have to. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: Or, you could pay your fair share, rather than foist the cost of your children off onto everybody else. I am paying for my own kids. The tax break I get for having them doesn't change the fact that we don't receive anything in terms of services for them. My property taxes pay for their education; I pay for all their other needs. You might have a valid point about people that are living in WIC and food stamps and Medicaid, but my tax breaks just mean I am not paying for their kids in addition to my kids. Also, you could stop complaining about having to pay your fair share for the kids that help keep us from being overwhelmed by muslims. Note the muslim countries, and the Europeans. Europe is importing more of a Muslim problem than just refugees. Those people have vastly different cultural values and attitudes than native Europeans - and a much higher rate of reproduction. What's our situation when the coutries we have the closest ties to start being governed by Muslims through democratic process? If you want to complain about there being too many people in the world, the place to start addressing that is in countries that have too many people and too high a birth rate, not in Western nations who are going to need those babies just to keep up. Otherwise, your concerns are eventually going to be drowned in a sea of Sharia law. Quoting Charlie Hebdo on how that's happening. You may remember them? |
|
| Author: | Slythe [ Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: Also, you could stop complaining about having to pay your fair share for the kids that help keep us from being overwhelmed by muslims. Bahahahaha |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Glade 4.0: The only place I go on the internet that gives me both feelings of "Wow, you are so right, I completely agree" and "What the **** kind of moron are you?" within the same 5 minute period: from the same poster. note: I am not immune from the assinine postings either, it should just be our board motto. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Fri Apr 08, 2016 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Panama Papers |
Awww. Poor parents. Taxes are awesome as long as other people have to pay them. 
|
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Apr 08, 2016 3:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Panama Papers |
Corolinth wrote: Awww. Poor parents. Taxes are awesome as long as other people have to pay them. <snip ridiculous gif> If you're not going to do you part by having kids, you can do your part by paying more in taxes. I'm not sure why you think I should be paying for everyone else's kids in addition to my own just because you haven't got any. No one's stopping you. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Panama Papers |
Should pay more in taxes when you have kids not less. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Panama Papers |
Lenas wrote: Should pay more in taxes when you have kids not less. lol no |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Panama Papers |
Lenas wrote: Should pay more in taxes when you have kids not less. I disagree. If nobody has kids, the world would fall apart. Just look at Japan, their demographics and future economic prospects are ****. Effects of too much birth control, abortions, selfishness, and people waiting until the perfect time. Quote: Parasite single (パラサイトシングル parasaito shinguru?) is a single person who lives with their parents beyond their late 20s or early 30s in order to enjoy a carefree and comfortable life. In Japanese culture, the term is especially used when negatively describing young unmarried women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_single |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
