3 ms·

I think you're downplaying this more than you should. I got a very different impression listening to Nicholas Shaxson (author of [1]) on the BBC. Most if not al

by typon 11y ago

I think you're downplaying this more than you should. I got a very different impression listening to Nicholas Shaxson (author of [1]) on the BBC. Most if not all the world leaders involved in this leak are VERY likely trying to hide personal money from their own country, that alone is a huge deal. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Treasure-Islands-Uncovering-Offshore-Banking/dp/0230341721 http://www.amazon.com/Treasure-Islands-Uncovering-Offshore-B...).

sievebrain 11y ago
Looks like Shaxson is a guy who writes books arguing for more financial regulation, talking to a media organisation. So that's two entities who want the story to be big. The worst offenders like Poroshenko are already known by their people as being corrupt. It is unlikely these cases will significantly change anything for them. Perhaps there will be more cases like Iceland, although it's a little hard to know how much benefit those politicians really got from their companies. I restate my case: the most impressive cases of corruption are in places where nothing will happen, and the cases in the west will turn out, on deeper investigation, to reveal not much of legal interest ... gaming of vague rules, at best.
- typon 11y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding why so many people are shocked/upset at this. I think Glenn Greenwald puts it well in his article [1]: "The deeper scandal is what's legal, not what's not." It's the same reason why people are so angry about the NSA scandal. You can have rubber stamp courts declaring everything you do legal all day; the point is that most people don't think what's happening is ethical. [1]:https://theintercept.com/2016/04/04/a-key-similarity-between-snowden-leak-and-panamapapers-scandal-is-whats-been-legalized/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/04/a-key-similarity-between...
  - sievebrain 11y ago
    And I think you're misunderstanding my posts. Where did I argue people would not be shocked or upset? I do not think this is comparable to the Snowden leaks. Those revealed secret courts, secret interpretations of laws and showed that spy agencies are effectively above the law. Many people had no idea what those agencies had become capable of or the lengths they were going to. But the fact that tax laws allow for offshore companies is not news. The fact that there are lots of them is not news either, these things exist in public registers. The story here is not that these things exist or that they work - which everyone knew already - it's who is using them.
    - tobltobs 11y ago
      > And I think you're misunderstanding my posts. Where did I argue people would not be shocked or upset? Maybe he did misunderstand(?) your following comment: "I suspect this will end up fizzling out and not resulting in very much."
      - sievebrain 11y ago
        That's a prediction about what will happen (legally and politically), not a statement about how people will feel about it.
branchless 11y ago
Exactly, why is Cameron's holding offshore stuff? Now he's dead and Cameron has picked up his assets, no doubt having avoided inheritance tax, is he holding these now? Why do normal people pay these taxes yet these guys do not? ----- to the poster below as HN throttle messages when UK corruption is raised: I think he was mocking the UK's corruption as law. The last part is a nod to Private Eye, the only remaining free press in the UK.
- deepnet 11y ago
  Re: Cameron Sr & Blairmore holdings use of the Panama firm. All of this is a perfectly legal tax avoidance scheme for the rich. The company, legitimately, never paid a penny in UK taxes because it was run by various Bahama Islanders & decision making was done in Switzerland at a ski resort. The Guardian article suggests there is evidence that the decisions & meetings were held in the UK - if that is true then Cameron Sr. illegally evaded millions in UK taxes. According to the Guardian, David Cameron has answered these claims by stating: 'This is family business'. Many will recognise this classic rejoinder from the Godfather movies. Now we are told the firm is being run from Ireland, where Google and Facebook were working the, perfectly legal, 'Dutch Irish Sandwich' tax avoidance scheme - that David Cameron rightly criticised and both tech firms apologised and paid up. So once again this is all perfectly legal. Perhaps a bit hypocrital given Cameron's 'tough' stance on tax avoidance and trying to put the blame on comedian Jimmy Carr. Of course, as before, if decisons were still being made in the UK, then the company would owe many millions in UK taxes and fines for evasion - but no-one is suggesting that. Jimmy obviously should have used the Cameron Family firm. The, probably perfectly legal, tax avoidance scheme for the super rich is called Blairmore Holdings. It is named after the ancestral Cameron family estate which recieves tons of money from Europe simply for the amount of land it contains. All perfectly legal, a sort of welfare for the gentry. If this all paints a picture of corrupt toffee nosed twits spouting lies about the poor while filling their offshore coffers then... shurely shome mistake. David Cameron is fully expected to give back the millions he inherited from all these decades of tax avoidance - cough or not. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-david-cameron-father-tax-bahamas http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-da... /s

by typon 11y ago

sievebrain 11y ago

Looks like Shaxson is a guy who writes books arguing for more financial regulation, talking to a media organisation. So that's two entities who want the story to be big. The worst offenders like Poroshenko are already known by their people as being corrupt. It is unlikely these cases will significantly change anything for them. Perhaps there will be more cases like Iceland, although it's a little hard to know how much benefit those politicians really got from their companies. I restate my case: the most impressive cases of corruption are in places where nothing will happen, and the cases in the west will turn out, on deeper investigation, to reveal not much of legal interest ... gaming of vague rules, at best.

typon 11y ago
I think you're misunderstanding why so many people are shocked/upset at this. I think Glenn Greenwald puts it well in his article [1]: "The deeper scandal is what's legal, not what's not." It's the same reason why people are so angry about the NSA scandal. You can have rubber stamp courts declaring everything you do legal all day; the point is that most people don't think what's happening is ethical. [1]:https://theintercept.com/2016/04/04/a-key-similarity-between-snowden-leak-and-panamapapers-scandal-is-whats-been-legalized/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/04/a-key-similarity-between...
- sievebrain 11y ago
  And I think you're misunderstanding my posts. Where did I argue people would not be shocked or upset? I do not think this is comparable to the Snowden leaks. Those revealed secret courts, secret interpretations of laws and showed that spy agencies are effectively above the law. Many people had no idea what those agencies had become capable of or the lengths they were going to. But the fact that tax laws allow for offshore companies is not news. The fact that there are lots of them is not news either, these things exist in public registers. The story here is not that these things exist or that they work - which everyone knew already - it's who is using them.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    > And I think you're misunderstanding my posts. Where did I argue people would not be shocked or upset? Maybe he did misunderstand(?) your following comment: "I suspect this will end up fizzling out and not resulting in very much."
    - sievebrain 11y ago
      That's a prediction about what will happen (legally and politically), not a statement about how people will feel about it.

branchless 11y ago

Exactly, why is Cameron's holding offshore stuff? Now he's dead and Cameron has picked up his assets, no doubt having avoided inheritance tax, is he holding these now? Why do normal people pay these taxes yet these guys do not? ----- to the poster below as HN throttle messages when UK corruption is raised: I think he was mocking the UK's corruption as law. The last part is a nod to Private Eye, the only remaining free press in the UK.

deepnet 11y ago
Re: Cameron Sr & Blairmore holdings use of the Panama firm. All of this is a perfectly legal tax avoidance scheme for the rich. The company, legitimately, never paid a penny in UK taxes because it was run by various Bahama Islanders & decision making was done in Switzerland at a ski resort. The Guardian article suggests there is evidence that the decisions & meetings were held in the UK - if that is true then Cameron Sr. illegally evaded millions in UK taxes. According to the Guardian, David Cameron has answered these claims by stating: 'This is family business'. Many will recognise this classic rejoinder from the Godfather movies. Now we are told the firm is being run from Ireland, where Google and Facebook were working the, perfectly legal, 'Dutch Irish Sandwich' tax avoidance scheme - that David Cameron rightly criticised and both tech firms apologised and paid up. So once again this is all perfectly legal. Perhaps a bit hypocrital given Cameron's 'tough' stance on tax avoidance and trying to put the blame on comedian Jimmy Carr. Of course, as before, if decisons were still being made in the UK, then the company would owe many millions in UK taxes and fines for evasion - but no-one is suggesting that. Jimmy obviously should have used the Cameron Family firm. The, probably perfectly legal, tax avoidance scheme for the super rich is called Blairmore Holdings. It is named after the ancestral Cameron family estate which recieves tons of money from Europe simply for the amount of land it contains. All perfectly legal, a sort of welfare for the gentry. If this all paints a picture of corrupt toffee nosed twits spouting lies about the poor while filling their offshore coffers then... shurely shome mistake. David Cameron is fully expected to give back the millions he inherited from all these decades of tax avoidance - cough or not. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-david-cameron-father-tax-bahamas http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-da... /s