To be sure! With Leo hanging over the front of the ship and screaming ‘I AM THE KING OF THE WORLD!’ as Putin holds on tight! The good ship HMS Democracy and Capitalism is sinking fast and you will be vindicated any day now because of this!!
I don’t known about all… that. Could you please elaborate on the extension of the pronoun ‘you’ in your post?
If the wikipedia information is correct, then it has state ownership, but the writing still makes no sense - either it is state owned as the wikipedia says or not. The assertions about ties to officialdom have no meaning as to the classification.
This is nonsensical.
The majority of the cases being cited are not from the democracies, but the opposite, and there is no special tied to a capitalism in hiding corrupt money.
Do you want a definition of ‘you’ or were you confused that I used ‘you’ to indicate, well, you? You have been seemingly predicting the decline and fall of democracy and/or capitalism for a while now in various posts, including this thread, so ‘you’ would seemingly be vindicated in such predictions when these Panama Papers show your asserted ‘democracy breach and capitalism failure’. Since you’ve failed to elaborate on your bald statement that it DOES show a ‘democracy breach and capitalism failure’, or even WHY it does so and merely asserted, again, that such exists I’m not seeing any difference from similar past assertions by ‘you’ on this subject. Feel free to elaborate, however, on WHY these papers show either a breach in democracy or a failure of capitalism. I don’t see it as related to capitalism at all, and honestly it seems to me to show one of the features of democracy that we are all able to get the information and discuss the issue openly, not a bug. Sort of the contrast between, say, China, where this story is being suppressed and Europe (less Russia of course) even where this directly affects their elected officials or the guys who run their biggest sports.
I see.
I would gladly expose my (counter)arguments, but not in a context where derision targets me personally.
(“The general rule is to attack the other poster’s arguments, rather than the other poster him- or herself.”)
Probably not true.
The big banks and money managers and others that desire to protect earnings from taxation will find other, newer, more discreet ways to hide their income from disclosure.
Oh, you meant anyone going to jail? Not a chance! Poor people go to jail. Rich people don’t.
Suit yourself. I, of course, DID attack your position and simply made fun of the fact that you have a certain theme in these sorts of threads wrt capitalism and democracy. If you feel like this ribbing is more than you can take and you choose not to respond or enlarge on your terse assertions earlier then that’s fine by me. I note that you didn’t respond to other posters who also thought your bald assertions were off, either, so I’ll just leave it there.
Holy crap. There’s no way that Mossack Fonseca can claim ignorance as to how their shell companies were being used. They deliberately and knowingly usurped the names of the Red Cross and other charities to obscure the movement of funds.
I have to wonder if this is legal even in Panama.
Tell that to Bernie Madoff. His release date is 2139. He was sentenced to 150 years in jail and fined 17 billion. I’m as cynical as the next person, but with enough evidence then yes sometimes rich people do go to Jail.
Cynical beast that I am, I feel they really through the book at him because he screwed over the rich and powerful. The big kids just HATE when that happens. :rolleyes:
I was about to post the same thing.
You have a point, but still, this may cause David Cameron to be forced to resign, or at least it may lose him the next election, so the results are still a lot more than “nothing”
They’re all at it. Seriously - the MPs’ pension fund uses offshore accounts.
Corbyn gets offshore income.
The BBC have £84M in Bermuda.
The left wing Daily Mirror’s pension scheme uses offshore funds.
That bastion of the Left Wing, the Guardian, uses offshore funds in the Caymans.
The Huffington Post’s EU headquarters is registered as being in the tax haven of Luxembourg.
And so on.
That is possibly the weakest attempt at a tu quoque I’ve ever seen. Would you care to explain just what you think is wrong with him receiving (and declaring) a payment from foreign companies.
There is nothing wrong with using an offshore account, but if you are a resident of the UK for tax purposes you have to declare your world wide income. Same with most countries in the world. It’s wrong (and illegal) when you don’t declare the income going into your offshore account in the country of which you are a tax resident.
But didn’t David Cameron declare the money gained from his late fathers account? Yet you say he could lose his job or a re-election over it.
If it’s declared on your taxes then it’s not illegal. That’s not saying that political opponents won’t try to spin it as unethical somehow.
He declared it, but also initially denied (to the public) that he received it. I don’t think it’s enough to force him to resign or to bring down the government, but it won’t help any in the next election.
I would link to the excellent breakdown Labour Rebuttal’s blog did, but as it’s on facebook I’ll just rehash it here:
- Cameron’s father setup 6 known offshore funds, specifically stating in some of the brochures they would be able to avoid UK tax
- In 2012, following the high profile case of a comedian using offshore trusts to avoid taxes as morally wrong. It has now become known that in 1997 he bought 5000 units of such a fund.
- When he became an MP, he refused to disclose this in Commons records. This put him in conflict, as he then went on to speak in debates on offshore tax avoidance schemes.
- He further failed to register the proceeds of the 2010 sale of these shares in the Registers of Members Interests, in breach of the MPs code of conduct.
- In 2010 he then went on to receive a split inheritance, with one payment from his deceased father’s estate of £300,000 (just below the tax free limit) and then a gift from his mother of £200,000. While not at all illegal, it is a highly questionable move for the person claiming everyone should do their bit to balance the national budget.
- More concerning though is that Cameron has refused to disclose just what funds are in the family trusts, where they came from, or who else has benefitted
- This puts him in clear conflict with the role he played lobbying the EU to protect the beneficiaries of offshore trusts in 2013.
- And just to make things a bit more dubious, when question on what he received he went on to change his story 4 times in one week.
Of course he has now gone on the defensive and published his tax returns for the last 3 years, but as the comedian Frankie Boyle pointed out “A tax return is a pretty useless guide to whether people have money offshore that they don’t pay tax on.”
The BBC is reporting that the headquarters of Mossack Fonseca have been raided.
Was this done to gather evidence, or to destroy it?
Yeah, I know… tinfoil hat. I’m just getting so damned cynical. If it’s our leaders who are doing these things, then how can we expect them to do anything about it?