The Panama Papers

[Aella_]

They're now splattered all over the news, but I first read about them in the Political Forum :

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=76432732#post76432732

 

[Aella_]

The Panama Papers? A guide to history's biggest data leak.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers


"The documents show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes. Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens.

A $2bn trail leads all the way to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin – is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore.

Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.

An offshore investment fund run by the father of British prime minister David Cameron avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by hiring a small army of Bahamas residents to sign its paperwork.

The Panama Papers also show how billions of pounds of offshore cash flooded the British property market."

 

[Aella_]

Panama Papers: The Real Scandal Is What's Legal
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/panama-papers-crimes/477156/


"Mossack Fonseca kept its clients largely on the right side of the law. Indeed, that’s entirely the point.
Some of the activity uncovered in the Panama Papers will turn out to be illegal. But if past is prologue, then the majority of what we learn from the leak will merely be embarrassing for those exposed—showing them to be opportunistic and perhaps unethical, but not criminal.

Names appearing in the leak: 140 politicians and officials from more than 50 countries. While some of those countries are known to have problems with fraud and crime by individuals in government, others are not.

Iceland, France, Chile, and Botswana—all of which have officials listed as clients of Mossack Fonseca—are ranked highly on anti-corruption indexes

The U.K. is far from unique in holding this conflicted position relative to the offshore world, and nations like Panama know it.

For example, the U.S. has been very aggressive about cracking down on overseas tax avoidance in recent years. But it has also become a popular tax and secrecy haven in its own right, earning it the nickname “the new Switzerland.”

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And we keep getting richer,

But we can't get our picture,

On the Cover of the Rolling Stone!

(Maybe we should cry rape...)

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

FairTax.org

 

[Aella_]

And we keep getting richer,

But we can't get our picture,

On the Cover of the Rolling Stone!

(Maybe we should cry rape...)

The other thing is:

1.most docs. leaked involve europeans or other non-americans. They claimed that americans have a better handle on these and things are more in the open.
Yeah right… It only means that their cronies employed the services of another 'firm', or so on.

2.I noticed that a few american left-leaning american newspapers phrased this as being a victory of the democratic party in the upcoming elections. Not sure how/why, but that's not my "area of expertise".

I'd be interested in reading people's opinion on these, if anyone would bother.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm not thrilled at the way they are selectively dumping documents...



Some politicians on the naughty list and others,

On the play ball list.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The other thing is:

1.most docs. leaked involve europeans or other non-americans. They claimed that americans have a better handle on these and things are more in the open.
Yeah right… It only means that their cronies employed the services of another 'firm', or so on.

...

No, it means we created the Foundation so that our elites could shelter in place.

 

[Aella_]

I'm not thrilled at the way they are selectively dumping documents...

Some politicians on the naughty list and others,

On the play ball list.

That's what I found too.
The only thing that interests me from the leak is the fact that it only documents what we all knew about the way the world works. Regardless of the Elite's nationalities or political affiliations.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

When taxation is punitive (redistributionist) then those who can hide it will, those who can flee it will, those who can purchase indulgences will and those who can seize the power to tax, will also do it and skim off the top

*cough* *cough* *Clinton* *cough*

 

[Smootg103]

They're now splattered all over the news, but I first read about them in the Political Forum :

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=76432732#post76432732

Then go talk about it in political forum paki fagot.

 

[Lancecastor]

Or...make it a macro social discussion and keep it here.

I, for example, like the idea of the Rich being able to subvent the rules.

Gives the rest something to aspire to.

Keeps the notion of Rebellious Freedom alive.

 

[Ishmael]

When taxation is punitive (redistributionist) then those who can hide it will, those who can flee it will, those who can purchase indulgences will and those who can seize the power to tax, will also do it and skim off the top

*cough* *cough* *Clinton* *cough*

Of course things can change, but have you noticed where the politicians are from and what their political leanings are?

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Of course things can change, but have you noticed where the politicians are from and what their political leanings are?

Ishmael

Actually, other than snippets, I haven't been paying a lot of attention. The work schedule is leaving me continually jet-lagged and lacking a lot of energy just to sit down and study.

 

[Aella_]

Two sets of news from # newssites. While they don't contradict each other, I had trouble putting them in perspective and coming up with a synthesis :


NEWS SET 1:


The Panama Papers prove it: America can afford a universal basic income
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-taxes-universal-basic-income-public-services

"While working and middle-class families pay their taxes or face consequences, the Panama Papers remind us that the worst of the 1% have, for years, essentially been stealing access to Americans’ common birthright, and to the benefits of our shared endeavors.

The Tax Justice Network estimates the global elite are sitting on $21–32tn of untaxed assets. Clearly, only a portion of that is owed to the US or any other nation in taxes – the highest tax bracket in the US is 39.6% of income. But consider that a small universal income of $2,000 a year to every adult in the US – enough to keep some people from missing a mortgage payment or skimping on food or medicine – would cost only around $563bn each year.

A larger income, to ensure that no American fell into absolute abject poverty – say, $12,000 a year – would cost around $3.6tn. That is a big number, but one that once again seems far more reasonable when considered through the lens of the Panama Papers and the scandal of global tax evasion."



Sanders Links Clinton to Panama Papers Scandal
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-links-clinton-panama-papers-scandal/

"Responding to Hillary Clinton’s attempt to portray him as unqualified for the White House, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders linked her to a trade pact exploited by wealthy individuals and profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes.

An investigation by a team of journalists revealed that 214,000 entities throughout the world have used a law firm in Panama to shelter their incomes and profits to avoid paying taxes. The release this week of the documents on offshore financial dealings raised questions over the widespread use of tactics to avoid taxes."

 

[Aella_]

NEWS SET 2

WikiLeaks - US government, Soros funded Panama Papers to attack Putin
https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-attack/

"Washington is behind the recently released offshore revelations known as the Panama Papers, WikiLeaks has claimed, saying that the attack was “produced” to target Russia and President Putin.

On Wednesday, the international whistleblowing organization said on Twitter that the Panama Papers data leak was produced by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), "which targets Russia and [the] former USSR." The "Putin attack" was funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and American hedge fund billionaire George Soros, WikiLeaks added, saying that the US government's funding of such an attack is a serious blow to its integrity."

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

FairTax.org

Still trying to push the most regressive idea for taxation out there which would just create a HUGE black market huh Cap'nDumbass?

 

[Hypoxia]

Washington is behind the recently released offshore revelations known as the Panama Papers, WikiLeaks has claimed, saying that the attack was “produced” to target Russia and President Putin.

So someone claiming to be with WikiLeaks claims. What evidence have they produced to support that claim? How do we know that someone knowledgeable in WikiLeaks sent the tweet?

 

[Aella_]

So someone claiming to be with WikiLeaks claims. What evidence have they produced to support that claim? How do we know that someone knowledgeable in WikiLeaks sent the tweet?

Oops… Haven't thought about it.
But Rt news (despite it's pro-Russia orientation : I only check them out to add a 2nd perspective to the mainstream media) is a professional newssite.
- I think they would've checked the tweets thorougly for authenticity, rather than risking ridicule. And they wouldn't have made them up either - cause Wikileaks would have denied it.

 

[Aella_]

Which brings me to the question: what sort of affiliation do Wikileaks have? (I mean the Snowden leaks and so on)…
- Who funds them?
- or if not that: what sort of ideology or bias do they have? These things are inevitable

Not meant as an "attack" (they did a great service to us - the little guys) but I'm starting to see a slight bias. Meaning: which nationalities or political parties were they always careful to Not offend?

 

[Hypoxia]

Oops… Haven't thought about it.
But Rt news (despite it's pro-Russia orientation : I only check them out to add a 2nd perspective to the mainstream media) is a professional newssite.
- I think they would've checked the tweets thorougly for authenticity, rather than risking ridicule. And they wouldn't have made them up either - cause Wikileaks would have denied it.

Which brings me to the question: what sort of affiliation do Wikileaks have? (I mean the Snowden leaks and so on)…
- Who funds them?
- or if not that: what sort of ideology or bias do they have? These things are inevitable

Not meant as an "attack" (they did a great service to us - the little guys) but I'm starting to see a slight bias. Meaning: which nationalities or political parties were they always careful to Not offend?

My points were about the identity of the tweet's source -- WHO is 'WikiLeaks@WikiLeaks" and why should we believe they have valid knowledge? -- and the content of the claim -- what EVIDENCE supports the contention? I can claim all sorts of shit as a conspiracy-theory but at put-up-or-shut-up time I'll merely switch the subject and proclaim some other horseshit to be real. Have any other Panama Papers tweets emerged from WikiLeaks?

Your point is good and goes back to the identity question. Who is tweeting, what role do they have at WikiLeaks, and how did they get there? Who has tweeting authority, and why? And then, what are their affiliations and who sponsors them? I seem to recall reports of faction fights within WikiLeaks in recent years. What do we know about their internal dynamics?

 

[oggbashan]

The Panama Papers were leaked by 'John Doe' not by WikiLeaks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

WikiLeaks is stating that everything should be published, not just the bits the journalists like. That is a classic WikiLeak position - 'Publish and be damned'. But there is no evidence that WikiLeaks actually obtained the documents.

Why did 'John Doe' leak the Panama Papers? The obvious answers could be for money, or as a political statement. We don't know.

 

[Aella_]

Thanks, Oggbashan.was having in mind those tweets by WikiLeaks, that followed the leak.
I actually was more clear about it in the Political Forum, but since you're here…

Many thanks - to both you and Ogg.

What also baffles me a bit is WikiLeaks's involvement in all this: Why so quick to make a statement? And why in This particular case? (they weren't so quick to intervene when "slander attempts" were directed at Other targets).
- who's funding them?
- or, if not, what sort of ideology drives them?
Do they have a pattern of trying "not to offend" certain parties?

In saying these, I only started asking myself these questions after seeing the tweets. Because prior to this, I always saw WikiLeaks as being altruistic idealists who work for the "little guy". (I might have been right or naiive, who knows… .)

N.B.
Just thinking aloud - but if someone commented on that : that would be a bonus.

 

[Queersetti]

http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE2LzA0LzA2LzVmL1BhbmFtYVBhcGVyLjQ3OThkLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4NjI3IwplCWpwZw/347e8e9a/a49/PanamaPapersThumb.jpg