Panama Papers

[Martinus]

Your position that some of the transactions that were arguably legal should not be criticized has some questionable assumptions.

The first assumption is that a legal act should not be criticized.  That is a rather odd position to take in a democratic society.  Laws should be carefully considered and where appropriate changed through the democratic process.  One way to do that is to make the general public aware of laws that should receive more scrutiny.

This is probably why I said in one of the first posts in this tread that if you don't like such actions being legal, lobby for law to be changed, rather than bitching about evil rich people trying to minimise their tax exposure through legal means.

I don't understand your point in the other two assumptions so will not respond.

How can you lobby about a problem that nobody is aware of because the current structure allows the mega wealthy to hide the problem completely?

The problem is you are violating all these people's privacy by revealing something about them that is possibly somewhat embarrassing (for example to their relatives, if they are hiding the money from them) but legal to make the public aware of a problem that, even if addressed, would probably concerns only a small number of these people.

This is not unlike a witch hunt. Or, say, the press revealing people's legal but embarrassing sexual preferences and fetishes to highlight some potentially related issue that may concern only a small number of them (say, you wanted to address sexual violence and revealed details of all people who engage in BDSM). 

[crazy canuck]

CC, wouldn't the moral argument you are making rest on an assumption that taxes are morally good?

There are plenty of people out there who are not criminals and who think that the state (especially in countries like Canada) is too bloated and grabs too much of private citizens' money. They lack the ability to change that because, to paraphrase Toqueville, the rabble has figured out how to use democracy to help itself to public money, and it is no longer possible to stop them from leeching off it. From such a perspective, using legal tax avoidance mechanisms is not just morally neutral - it is actually morally positive, because you are actually protecting the product of your hard work from the hands of the parasites.

I do not necessarily share this view, mind you, but you are making as many moral assumptions as anyone else here, but pretend to argue from the position of objective morality.

And I quite explicitly stated I was taking a position based on morality.  I think you are missing the point again.  The position you took assumes that the law is neutral.  It most definitely is not.  But morality aside, as a practical matter the current state of the law undermines the ability of the nation state to implement effective progressive tax systems.  For all the reasons stated by Picketty that kind of system leads to extreme income inequality and as a result is inherently unstable.

[Berkut]

Your position that some of the transactions that were arguably legal should not be criticized has some questionable assumptions.

The first assumption is that a legal act should not be criticized.  That is a rather odd position to take in a democratic society.  Laws should be carefully considered and where appropriate changed through the democratic process.  One way to do that is to make the general public aware of laws that should receive more scrutiny.

This is probably why I said in one of the first posts in this tread that if you don't like such actions being legal, lobby for law to be changed, rather than bitching about evil rich people trying to minimise their tax exposure through legal means.

I don't understand your point in the other two assumptions so will not respond.

How can you lobby about a problem that nobody is aware of because the current structure allows the mega wealthy to hide the problem completely?

The problem is you are violating all these people's privacy by revealing something about them that is possibly somewhat embarrassing (for example to their relatives, if they are hiding the money from them) but legal to make the public aware of a problem that, even if addressed, would probably concerns only a small number of these people.

This is not unlike a witch hunt. Or, say, the press revealing people's legal but embarrassing sexual preferences and fetishes to highlight some potentially related issue that may concern only a small number of them (say, you wanted to address sexual violence and revealed details of all people who engage in BDSM). 

Except it isn't anything like that at all.

I am required to disclose my financial information to the government in order to allow them to assess my taxes.

Nobody is talking about anyone having the right to look at my tax returns - other than the IRS.

If I hide my income in some shell company so that the IRS can't see it, and what is more, the people who have a say in making laws about how taxes ought to be collected cannot even know it exists to be taxed, then of course that is a problem.

Now, the solution to this particular problem is likely to involve the public getting access to data they would not get normally, but that is a result of these people trying to hide their assets from legitimate review. Tough shit. I have no sympathy for the mega wealthy or their lawyers.

[Martinus]

I have no sympathy for the mega wealthy or their lawyers.

You could have just posted that line - because it encapsulates your entire "philosophy" on the issue - and save us the rest of the rant.

[crazy canuck]

I have no sympathy for the mega wealthy or their lawyers.

You could have just posted that line - because it encapsulates your entire "philosophy" on the issue - and save us the rest of the rant.

Are taking the position that the wealthy should be given special treatment under the law?

[Berkut]

I have no sympathy for the mega wealthy or their lawyers.

You could have just posted that line - because it encapsulates your entire "philosophy" on the issue - and save us the rest of the rant.

Are taking the position that the wealthy should be given special treatment under the law?

Of course! They are rich and can afford special treatment!

And lawyers make a lot of money providing said treatment!

[Berkut]

I have no sympathy for the mega wealthy or their lawyers.

You could have just posted that line - because it encapsulates your entire "philosophy" on the issue - and save us the rest of the rant.

Well, I guess posting that line allowed you to shut off your brain and just pretend that is all I posted, so there is that advantage. To you, anyway. You're welcome.

[Malthus]

No-one ever sympathizes with the lawyers. 

If you prick us, do we not bleed?

And sue? 

[Berkut]

No-one ever sympathizes with the lawyers. 

If you prick us, do we not bleed?

And sue? 

I have no problem with lawyers, but it is annoying to see someone not just benefit from a screwed up system, but turn around and try to make a moral argument for why the system is actually a positive.

It would be like OJs lawyer getting up and arguing that not only does he deserve the best possible defense, but they actually deserved it and we should thank OJ for getting rid of her.

[frunk]

Uhm, no. The Panama Papers are largely about private individuals and their wholly owned company vehicles, not about corporations.

So companies have a right to privacy?  I don't think so.  I don't see why it would matter who owns the company, the company isn't a person and doesn't get rights.

[Tamas]

Apart from business secrets

[crazy canuck]

Apart from business secrets

That isnt a "right" in the sense being used here.  Those are mainly reduced to contractual obligations and copyright/trademark law which has its own complexities.  There is no blanket "right" to business secrets.

[MadImmortalMan]

I'd say there is a blanket right to secrets in general.

[crazy canuck]

I'd say there is a blanket right to secrets in general.

Ok, but that is not the law.

Unless you want to extend the law of copyright and patent to provide unlimited protection.

[MadImmortalMan]

Another example of the law breaking with morality.