6 ms·

I really dislike the title, tone and dramatic quality of this piece. I went to law school and got a job as a tax attorney. I don't consider my work or world pa

I really dislike the title, tone and dramatic quality of this piece. I went to law school and got a job as a tax attorney. I don't consider my work or world particularly secretive. The barriers to entry are not peculiarly high and lawyers as a profession are a little too happy to talk about themselves. There's a great comment on the Atlantic that states this better than I can "If by secret, you mean extraordinarily complex, then yes. But... that's not the definition of secret. It's not secret. There are many classes on this (albeit from professional-level degrees) and it's all based on public statutes and court cases. All of which are freely available to any person. A large part of it being "secret" has to do with people's willingness to listen and understand. I'm a tax attorney, I understand these deals, and I can explain them rather well so even someone unfamiliar with tax law will understand it. However, it still does take a bit of active listening on behalf of an unfamiliar (as in, unfamiliar with tax law) listener to actually understand what I'm talking about, regardless of how much I simplify it." The most disappointing thing about international tax is how little even professional journalists understand it, or care to. It is simply easier to assert that international tax is a scam and since the general public can barely count to 10 using both hands, there's no way to disprove them.

Retric 11y ago
Secrets don't need to be actively hidden. It's reasonable to talk about the secret world of E.R. doctors not because there hiding, but because it's not widely known. Sure, the rules may be public the play is not.
jmcmichael 11y ago
No, I think what the author of the article means by 'secret' is not the very complex processes themselves, but the secrecy those complex processes provide to the wealthy - secrecy and privacy that the hoi polloi do not enjoy. Also, the secrecy that allows these people to remove themselves from social and democratic processes that the rest of us must follow, like taxes and the law.
gozo 11y ago
The title is, as usual, editorialized by the newspaper. The original title, as per the title tag, is "How Wealthy People Protect Their Money". There's a pretty big difference between being a tax attorney and being an offshore consultant where secrecy is one of the selling points. It's not a coincidence that voluntary corrections of tax statements go up significantly when new information sharing agreements are made. And again she's not a journalist, she has a PhD in Sociology from Harvard and is an associate professor of economic sociology.
- Nrsolis 11y ago
  Secrecy isn't necessarily an indicator that there is law-breaking involved. Sometimes secrecy is desired for someone who has had negative attention focused on them by the general public for no other reason than they present a fat, juicy target for lawsuits. Many people I know who have significant assets bemoan the challenges that present themselves when trying to engage in anything resembling a negotiation involving finance. If one side KNOWS you have the capability to pay more, then you're at a disadvantage. And don't get me started with the lawsuits. People who have money seem to attract lawsuits the same way that children catch colds from kindergarten. As they say: "You know you're rich when you're finally sued frivolously."
  - vanderZwan 11y ago
    > Secrecy isn't necessarily an indicator that there is law-breaking involved. So? Abusing loopholes in the law is also by definition perfectly legal, but still dubious practice. In fact, that's exactly what this sentence from the article alludes to: > By the same token, when Oxfam estimates that just 1 percent of the world’s population will own more than 50 percent of the world’s wealth by 2016, it’s important to realize that such a state of affairs doesn’t just happen by itself, or even through the actions of individual wealthy people. For the most part, the wealthy are busy enjoying their wealth or making more of it; keeping those personal fortunes out of the hands of governments (along with creditors, litigants, divorced spouses, and disgruntled heirs) is the job of wealth managers. > Given the little that is known about the profession and its role in global inequality, it seemed imperative to learn more about how wealth managers pull off this sleight of hand: Without breaking any laws (for the most part), they enable their clients to sidestep many laws and policies—especially those designed to prevent the kind of neo-feudal concentrations of wealth emerging now. You're right on all other points of course.
acheron 11y ago
The most disappointing thing about [insert topic here] is how little even professional journalists understand it, or care to. You've heard of Gell-Mann Amnesia?
- parsnipsumthing 11y ago
  That made me laugh out loud because it's clearly so correct. Sigh.
  - gozo 11y ago
    Except you still haven't explained what's actually wrong with the article, even though the author seemingly has far more experience than you do. It seem more like you disagree with the view of your profession, something that seem more easily explained by bias than any factual disagreement. Especially since one of the point of the article is the existence of such an in-group bias.
samstave 11y ago
Question: There was a post a while back on HN where there was advice given on finding a former IRS employee to help with certain tax issues. There was a specific name for this type of employee who now is a private sector consultant... Do you happen to know of the thread, or even the term for this person? I need to use that advice now and I cannot find the comment thread or recall the term used. Thanks
- DanBC 11y ago
  This one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789363#up_7789806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789363#up_7789806
  - samstave 11y ago
    That's it!! Thank you "Enrolled Agents" was the term I was looking for. Appreciated.
  - gknoy 11y ago
    I think it's clever (and, in this case, appropriate) that you linked to the anchor for upvoting. :) I didn't know that was possible.
    - antsar 11y ago
      The upvote anchor seems to be the only unique anchor that exists for each comment, making this the only way of linking to a comment in the middle of a page.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      I can't take any credit for that! It's what Algolia returned.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  Your contact info isn't in your profile; if you're in the New England area, I'd be happy to introduce you to my tax preparer, who is an enrolled agent (though not ex-IRS). No connection, other than extremely satisfied and trusting client.
SovietDissident 11y ago
This was my reaction as well. When she tells the story about the gentleman who is wary of academics concerned with income inequality, I think it's interesting that she seems to be writing precisely the kind of account that may lead to further scrutiny of his assets and people like him. I would say his concern is well-placed! There are two ways to look at this issue. First, these rich people are just fleecing the "system" and governmental powers should be increased to prosecute them. Or, the "progressive" tax system is particularly punitive for high net worth individuals, and they will continue to shell out millions to wealth managers while tax laws are actively hostile to their assets. (Tax collections have been ~19% throughout U.S. history, even when tax rates were as high as 90%.[0]) On a purely "practical" level, tax codes should be simplified and taxes lowered so that it's more economical for those of high net worth to comply with the intent of the law, rather than skirt it. As an added bonus, it would also help economic growth generally. [0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487035149045756029...
- tankenmate 11y ago
  When some people's effective tax rates are lower than the lowest tax band in a progressive tax system it can hardly be claimed that the system is "fleecing" them.
  - wooter 11y ago
    Your conjecture isn't true though. In the US, the top 10% pay 68% of all federal taxes - the top 1%, 35%. So how are they effectively paying the lowest band?
    - gknoy 11y ago
      The GP is talking about the percentage of their income being spent on taxes. If you make 1 million dollars per year, and I make 100k, and my taxes are 30k per year while yours are 100k/year (numbers made up), you'd be paying more total taxes, and a larger slice of the total tax dollars paid. However, my taxes are 30% of my income, whereas yours would be only 10% of your income. If we paid at the same "band" of taxes, you would be paying $300k instead of $100k. Because the tax bands tax you at a lower percent the higher up you go, making more money leads to less proportion of taxes. Consider also that the people who pay the most tax (in dollars) often have a substantial amount of their wealth in real estate, stocks, or stock options, rather than cash income, and those are all taxed differently than the kind of income that most of us have.
Nicholas_C 11y ago
Now that the double Irish tax arrangement is being mitigated by the Irish government do you see any other tax arrangements for international companies that will become more popular? Any good books on understanding international tax strategy for corporations?
dang 11y ago
Ok, we changed the title to a representative phrase from the article. If anyone can suggest an accurate and neutral title that is better, please do, and we'll change it again.

Retric 11y ago

Secrets don't need to be actively hidden. It's reasonable to talk about the secret world of E.R. doctors not because there hiding, but because it's not widely known. Sure, the rules may be public the play is not.

jmcmichael 11y ago

No, I think what the author of the article means by 'secret' is not the very complex processes themselves, but the secrecy those complex processes provide to the wealthy - secrecy and privacy that the hoi polloi do not enjoy. Also, the secrecy that allows these people to remove themselves from social and democratic processes that the rest of us must follow, like taxes and the law.

gozo 11y ago

The title is, as usual, editorialized by the newspaper. The original title, as per the title tag, is "How Wealthy People Protect Their Money". There's a pretty big difference between being a tax attorney and being an offshore consultant where secrecy is one of the selling points. It's not a coincidence that voluntary corrections of tax statements go up significantly when new information sharing agreements are made. And again she's not a journalist, she has a PhD in Sociology from Harvard and is an associate professor of economic sociology.

Nrsolis 11y ago
Secrecy isn't necessarily an indicator that there is law-breaking involved. Sometimes secrecy is desired for someone who has had negative attention focused on them by the general public for no other reason than they present a fat, juicy target for lawsuits. Many people I know who have significant assets bemoan the challenges that present themselves when trying to engage in anything resembling a negotiation involving finance. If one side KNOWS you have the capability to pay more, then you're at a disadvantage. And don't get me started with the lawsuits. People who have money seem to attract lawsuits the same way that children catch colds from kindergarten. As they say: "You know you're rich when you're finally sued frivolously."
- vanderZwan 11y ago
  > Secrecy isn't necessarily an indicator that there is law-breaking involved. So? Abusing loopholes in the law is also by definition perfectly legal, but still dubious practice. In fact, that's exactly what this sentence from the article alludes to: > By the same token, when Oxfam estimates that just 1 percent of the world’s population will own more than 50 percent of the world’s wealth by 2016, it’s important to realize that such a state of affairs doesn’t just happen by itself, or even through the actions of individual wealthy people. For the most part, the wealthy are busy enjoying their wealth or making more of it; keeping those personal fortunes out of the hands of governments (along with creditors, litigants, divorced spouses, and disgruntled heirs) is the job of wealth managers. > Given the little that is known about the profession and its role in global inequality, it seemed imperative to learn more about how wealth managers pull off this sleight of hand: Without breaking any laws (for the most part), they enable their clients to sidestep many laws and policies—especially those designed to prevent the kind of neo-feudal concentrations of wealth emerging now. You're right on all other points of course.

acheron 11y ago

The most disappointing thing about [insert topic here] is how little even professional journalists understand it, or care to. You've heard of Gell-Mann Amnesia?

parsnipsumthing 11y ago
That made me laugh out loud because it's clearly so correct. Sigh.
- gozo 11y ago
  Except you still haven't explained what's actually wrong with the article, even though the author seemingly has far more experience than you do. It seem more like you disagree with the view of your profession, something that seem more easily explained by bias than any factual disagreement. Especially since one of the point of the article is the existence of such an in-group bias.

samstave 11y ago

Question: There was a post a while back on HN where there was advice given on finding a former IRS employee to help with certain tax issues. There was a specific name for this type of employee who now is a private sector consultant... Do you happen to know of the thread, or even the term for this person? I need to use that advice now and I cannot find the comment thread or recall the term used. Thanks

DanBC 11y ago
This one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789363#up_7789806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7789363#up_7789806
- samstave 11y ago
  That's it!! Thank you "Enrolled Agents" was the term I was looking for. Appreciated.
- gknoy 11y ago
  I think it's clever (and, in this case, appropriate) that you linked to the anchor for upvoting. :) I didn't know that was possible.
  - antsar 11y ago
    The upvote anchor seems to be the only unique anchor that exists for each comment, making this the only way of linking to a comment in the middle of a page.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    I can't take any credit for that! It's what Algolia returned.
sokoloff 11y ago
Your contact info isn't in your profile; if you're in the New England area, I'd be happy to introduce you to my tax preparer, who is an enrolled agent (though not ex-IRS). No connection, other than extremely satisfied and trusting client.

SovietDissident 11y ago

This was my reaction as well. When she tells the story about the gentleman who is wary of academics concerned with income inequality, I think it's interesting that she seems to be writing precisely the kind of account that may lead to further scrutiny of his assets and people like him. I would say his concern is well-placed! There are two ways to look at this issue. First, these rich people are just fleecing the "system" and governmental powers should be increased to prosecute them. Or, the "progressive" tax system is particularly punitive for high net worth individuals, and they will continue to shell out millions to wealth managers while tax laws are actively hostile to their assets. (Tax collections have been ~19% throughout U.S. history, even when tax rates were as high as 90%.[0]) On a purely "practical" level, tax codes should be simplified and taxes lowered so that it's more economical for those of high net worth to comply with the intent of the law, rather than skirt it. As an added bonus, it would also help economic growth generally. [0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487035149045756029...

tankenmate 11y ago
When some people's effective tax rates are lower than the lowest tax band in a progressive tax system it can hardly be claimed that the system is "fleecing" them.
- wooter 11y ago
  Your conjecture isn't true though. In the US, the top 10% pay 68% of all federal taxes - the top 1%, 35%. So how are they effectively paying the lowest band?
  - gknoy 11y ago
    The GP is talking about the percentage of their income being spent on taxes. If you make 1 million dollars per year, and I make 100k, and my taxes are 30k per year while yours are 100k/year (numbers made up), you'd be paying more total taxes, and a larger slice of the total tax dollars paid. However, my taxes are 30% of my income, whereas yours would be only 10% of your income. If we paid at the same "band" of taxes, you would be paying $300k instead of $100k. Because the tax bands tax you at a lower percent the higher up you go, making more money leads to less proportion of taxes. Consider also that the people who pay the most tax (in dollars) often have a substantial amount of their wealth in real estate, stocks, or stock options, rather than cash income, and those are all taxed differently than the kind of income that most of us have.

Nicholas_C 11y ago

Now that the double Irish tax arrangement is being mitigated by the Irish government do you see any other tax arrangements for international companies that will become more popular? Any good books on understanding international tax strategy for corporations?

dang 11y ago

Ok, we changed the title to a representative phrase from the article. If anyone can suggest an accurate and neutral title that is better, please do, and we'll change it again.