4 ms·

Yes and to shut down Cayman Islands and Cyprus while they're at it. It goes to show how incredibly corrupt the global elites are that they "can't" shut down mon

Yes and to shut down Cayman Islands and Cyprus while they're at it. It goes to show how incredibly corrupt the global elites are that they "can't" shut down money laundering by tiny island nations who would roll over in 5 seconds if told to by someone like the US. The truth is they love it because that's where they keep their money.

6510 6y ago
We clearly do all have officials who should be dealing with this. I wonder if they can be persecuted for treason.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  That's going to be difficult to organise in a plutocracy. There are insane sums being spent in organised campaigns to limit the ability of governments to interfere with this ethic of systemic financial capture.
  - 6510 6y ago
    There might be a sweet spot where plutocracy is incompatible with kleptocracy. When you own a government you'd want some level of property maintenance. When you want to enrich yourself with public money you want as much of it as possible. The long vs the short game.
narag 6y ago
If you take a closer look at tax havens, you'll find that most of them are UK/US colonies, ex-colonies or de facto colonies.
- raphaelj 6y ago
  You're totally right. Yet half the world are ex UK colonies so ...
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    The reason it matters, and why the US and UK are complicit (as are Ireland and several other European nations) is that as someone hiding money you need the Rule of Law. Both countries are famous for the Rule of Law, at least in respect of the very wealthy. Imagine a hypothetical country the Amazing Fiefdom of Jim or AFJ for short. AFJ seems like a good tax haven at first glance, they have 0% tax on offshore revenues, companies can be set up there for a modest fee of $100, you don't need to be a citizen or ever visit, they don't ask you to file much paperwork and they reject all law enforcement paperwork queries for the little paperwork they do have. But alas, the ruler of the fiefdom, Jim, just sometimes takes stuff he wants. A billionaire who had hidden $400M and a big stake in Amazon via a company in AFJ one day discovers the company was now mysteriously owned by Jim, no way to dispute it! If that happens with some tiny island that used to be a British colony you can get it unwound, you'll need to pay some expensive lawyers in London to make that happen so it's not an option for the average person on the high street, but if you've got this sort of "need a tax haven" money you can afford those lawyers and get Jim dragged over the coals until he agrees to give back your stuff. This faith in the rule of law is why Russians hide money in England not in Russia. If you hide stolen money in Russia, and one day Putin wants the money, he just takes it and if anybody complains maybe they "commit suicide" by hurling themselves off a tall building entirely unassisted...

6510 6y ago

We clearly do all have officials who should be dealing with this. I wonder if they can be persecuted for treason.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
That's going to be difficult to organise in a plutocracy. There are insane sums being spent in organised campaigns to limit the ability of governments to interfere with this ethic of systemic financial capture.
- 6510 6y ago
  There might be a sweet spot where plutocracy is incompatible with kleptocracy. When you own a government you'd want some level of property maintenance. When you want to enrich yourself with public money you want as much of it as possible. The long vs the short game.

narag 6y ago

If you take a closer look at tax havens, you'll find that most of them are UK/US colonies, ex-colonies or de facto colonies.

raphaelj 6y ago
You're totally right. Yet half the world are ex UK colonies so ...
- tialaramex 6y ago
  The reason it matters, and why the US and UK are complicit (as are Ireland and several other European nations) is that as someone hiding money you need the Rule of Law. Both countries are famous for the Rule of Law, at least in respect of the very wealthy. Imagine a hypothetical country the Amazing Fiefdom of Jim or AFJ for short. AFJ seems like a good tax haven at first glance, they have 0% tax on offshore revenues, companies can be set up there for a modest fee of $100, you don't need to be a citizen or ever visit, they don't ask you to file much paperwork and they reject all law enforcement paperwork queries for the little paperwork they do have. But alas, the ruler of the fiefdom, Jim, just sometimes takes stuff he wants. A billionaire who had hidden $400M and a big stake in Amazon via a company in AFJ one day discovers the company was now mysteriously owned by Jim, no way to dispute it! If that happens with some tiny island that used to be a British colony you can get it unwound, you'll need to pay some expensive lawyers in London to make that happen so it's not an option for the average person on the high street, but if you've got this sort of "need a tax haven" money you can afford those lawyers and get Jim dragged over the coals until he agrees to give back your stuff. This faith in the rule of law is why Russians hide money in England not in Russia. If you hide stolen money in Russia, and one day Putin wants the money, he just takes it and if anybody complains maybe they "commit suicide" by hurling themselves off a tall building entirely unassisted...