15 ms·

I am aware of the fact its popular to dislike the ultra-rich, but is this not worrying to the general public? ProPublica has obtained a trove of IRS tax ret

• eloff 5y ago
  Some countries have public tax returns (Sweden? Norway? One of those Nordic countries.) I think probably they should be public data. That aside, for very rich people, having them be public is in the interest of the public as it reveals the shady stuff they do to dodge taxes (legally.)
  • cdolan 5y ago
    Debating wether tax returns should or should not be public is a great debate to have, I agree. The country should be having that debate. And if we decide tax returns should be made public, it should happen in the future so everyone is on the same page. The fact is that US tax returns are private information, regardless of what other countries are doing or what you and I think should be done.
    • machinebun 5y ago
      > Debating wether tax returns should or should not be public is a great debate to have, I agree. The country should be having that debate. And if we decide tax returns should be made public, it should happen in the future so everyone is on the same page. The same way the Snowden leaks were instrumental into regulation about surveillance, leaks like this are instrumental in crafting better tax policy, so I would say they are a public good. It's also not-quite possible to do it via completely legal means (as vested interest opposition is too big and has too much capital - the only way to battle against them seems to be to do it via not-so-legal means). So in this case the fight is punching up against people in positions of power, not down onto people that have no power, so I don't see a direct issue with it. If you have power, you should also have the proportionate responsibility.
      • cdolan 5y ago
        "Responsibility" is a very strange word in your comment to me. Snowden leaked government program details. How in the world is that the same about thousands of private citizens (aka not public figures) personal financial details? How are these individuals not being "responsible"? The only unresponsible person is the person(s) who leaked the details, and ProPublica for monetizing it.
        • machinebun 5y ago
          We have a disagreement in what makes a public figure then. I believe that over a certain level of wealth, the wealth alone makes someone a public figure or a figure of significance (since wealth = power, and public status also = power, and celebrity status = power). If someone is powerful enough to have power over other people (which the wealthy certainly are), then they should account for that power with appropriate responsibility. If you don't want to be a public figure, don't accumulate exorbitant amounts of wealth.
          • cdolan 5y ago
            When I say public figure (which Mr. Thiel is, despite his harassment by Gawker and other quirks, but I get your point) I am referring to the thousands of non-public figures who have had their personal tax details stolen and shared with ProPublica, who seemingly did nothing to deserve this.
            • ryandrake 5y ago
              It is in the public's interest to transparently understand the activities and finances of anyone with outsized political power. Since money is freely convertible to and from political power, people with outsized amounts of money have outsized political power, and are therefore public figures. Are ProPublica publishing details of people who are not rich?
              • cdolan 5y ago
    • walshemj 5y ago
      Welcome to the great panopticon remember the Telescreen sees all citizen.
  • yupper32 5y ago
    You want family and friends to know exactly how much you make? That's extremely problematic for a lot of people. Congress already has access to tax returns for the purpose of writing tax legislation. It's not perfect but I really don't want my finances public, and I'm not doing anything shady.
    • pmoriarty 5y ago
      "You want family and friends to know exactly how much you make? That's extremely problematic for a lot of people." Can you explain why it's problematic?
      • yupper32 5y ago
        Family can be very manipulative when they know you have much more money than them. It can end up massively hurting relationships. I don't even tell my parents how much I make.
        • pmoriarty 5y ago
          "Family can be very manipulative when they know you have much more money than them." As I suspected, this is mainly a problem of the rich. Most of the rest of us don't make much more money than anybody. So are we going to make our laws to advantage the rich or the vast and ever growing majority of the population who aren't and never will be rich?
          • yupper32 5y ago
            Ah yes, I'm the problem, paying around 40% in taxes. People making 6-figures a year are not the ones manipulating the financial system. HN is particularly in this category. But go ahead and lump me in with someone with like 6000x my net worth.
            • pmoriarty 5y ago
              You don't have to be a billionaire to be part of the problem (though it helps).
  • ffggvv 5y ago
    some countries have nude beaches but not sure if you want your private photos leaked to the public.
• loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  It's not about disliking the ultra-rich. It's about recognizing how the entire system is stacked against working people and that these ultra-rich pay 0% in taxes, while I pay 30%. The backbone of this nation is funded by the middle class and the poor being taxed, while the rich externalize their expenses to the government and pay little to nothing in taxation. If some IRS docs need to get leaked, then so be it. The reporting on this has been pretty responsible.
  • cdolan 5y ago
    Government spending is almost entirely leveraged by debt and these documents prove that these "ultra-rich" pay a large absolute dollar amount of taxes (albeit lower than 30%). That is factually non-zero. I am all for a healthy debate on the topic, but I disagree the reporting is responsible. Responsible reporting, in my opinion, would involve nameless "there is a $5 billion Roth IRA out there... the system isn't working", rather than naming private citizens who believe their tax returns from 2005-2020 are private information. Edit: And I think it may be of public curiosity to know about what goes on in the billionaire class. I get that, to a degree. My original point was that ProPublica is admitting that they are in control of thousands! of American's tax returns for the last decade and a half. There is no guarantee that the IT administrator or summer intern is going to keep that data safe.
    • pmoriarty 5y ago
      "these "ultra-rich" pay a large absolute dollar amount of taxes" Money is power. Because of the wealth they get to keep, these ultra rich are in many ways ruling the rest of us and turning more and more of us in to their servants, telling us how to run our lives, raise our kids, and what to believe. Are you ok with that? I'm not.
      • emteycz 5y ago
        Voters decide, not money. And the rich usually want a free world...
• legitster 5y ago
  The weird thing is that none of it is terribly surprising or unexpected. So information was stolen just to kind of confirm what everyone already knew? If this was all new information I might disagree with you, but we already knew capital gains is horrendously undertaxed. And knowing the specific dollar amount doesn't change the conversation much, it just makes it that much more incendiary.
  • cdolan 5y ago
    Counter point - Information was stolen and is being held that doesn't change the common narrative or introduce new information ("our tax system needs help"). Have you considered the amount of identity theft that can occur when you have 15-20 years of tax information on thousands of individuals? And that information has obviously been duplicated many times if it made its way from the IRS, through an informant, and into the hands of at least one person at ProPublica? I don't intend to defend "the system" and the fact ultra-rich can become even more ultra-rich, or the morality/fairness of that. I do find it very alarming that its apparently "OK" that Pro-Publica has intimate financial details of thousands of Americans - enough to completely ruin their lives if in the wrong hands - and its "OK because they have a lot of money". Thats not OK to have on any American, wealthy or not, in my opinion.
  • FabHK 5y ago
    There is a difference between mutual knowledge (everyone knows X) and common knowledge (everyone knows X, and knows that everyone knows X, and knows that everyone knows that everyone knows X, etc. ad infinitum). This brings the knowledge everyone sort of knew and makes it common knowledge. That can have a powerful impact.
  • scep12 5y ago
    > The weird thing is that none of it is terribly surprising or unexpected. Have I been living under a rock? I think we may have suspected that the ultrawealthy was not paying their fair share, but paying nothing? Using elaborate loopholes to actually get out of any tax burden at all? I found that to be shocking.
• pmoriarty 5y ago
  What's the argument for keeping tax returns secret?
  • bonzini 5y ago
    Mostly that you don't want random people to know how much you make, and unless you are a public figure there's no reason why it should be useful to the public.
    • pmoriarty 5y ago
      So what exactly is the problem with a random person knowing how much you make?
      • jes 5y ago
        How much do you make?
        • pmoriarty 5y ago
          Nothing. I'm out of work. Your turn.
          • adolph 5y ago
            So you got no skin in the game, take a hike.
          • Dma54rhs 5y ago
            Why are you out of work. If so, from where do you get the money to cover your expenses. Who and how much pays, or what are your savings?
        • claudiawerner 5y ago
          24k/year.
        • dgfitz 5y ago
• andrepd 5y ago
  > but thousands of private citizen's intimate financial disclosures (edit: seemingly for the purpose of weaponizing the data against them). Can you point to one instance of some of this data being divulged about random citizen's finances, or used for blackmailing someone? It seems silly to complain about legitimate journalism because the data might, but has not, been used for nefarious purposes. Google "whistleblowing".
  • IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
    Whistle blowing journalism implies you are reporting on acts breaking the law. Reporting things that are juicy but not illegal, is effectively gossip / tabloid material. You don't get to break the law in order to effectively gossip. Case in point. You don't get to break into the King of England's cell phone to report he's infertile, even if you think means English citizens have a right to know that the country will never have a Prince-heir. That is not legitimate journalism, and its certainly not whistle-blowing. Its repugnant and tabloid journalism. Personal privacy is never second to the mob. Period. EDIT: unsafe, fraud, abuse, corruption, malfeasance of government/company funds, are almost always also breaking fed/state/opco policy or regulations, and as such they are illicit and fall within the spectrum of whistle-blowing.
    • cdolan 5y ago
      Well said, take my upvote. Personal privacy and the belief that you are innocent until proven guilty (no matter how "obviously guilty" you are), are two things we've really forgotten in the USA and perhaps the modern world in general.
      • machinebun 5y ago
        The innocent until proven guilty only applies in criminal court, not in civil court by the way. Personal privacy is good, but there are some societal things that should supersede the right to personal privacy in my opinion - I don't think any single right should be absolute.
• enahs-sf 5y ago
  I grep'ed the article for the word 'criminal' and came up empty. This is essentially a hit piece. Say what you will about Bezos, Thiel, et al., but they are just high profile targets that propublica is going after for the clicks. I question the ethics of these journalists.
  • andrepd 5y ago
    Morality ≠ lawfullness. Many things are perfectly legal but profoundly immoral or unethical. The public has every right to know that they're being cheated like this, that working class people have to pay their taxes but the very rich don't.
  • luffapi 5y ago
    Who cares if it’s criminal? Do you only read crime reports? I was unaware that a Roth IRA could be exploited like this until this piece enlightened me.
  • FabHK 5y ago
    Maybe also grep synonyms: > Victor Fleischer, a tax law professor at the University of California, Irvine who has written about the valuation of founders’ shares, read the PayPal filings at ProPublica’s request. Buying startup shares at a discounted $0.001 price with a Roth, he asserts, would be indefensible. “That’s a huge scandal,” Fleischer said, adding, “How greedy can you get?”
• adolph 5y ago
  The only crime is ProPublica’s and some IRS people. Who’s next after “the rich?” Some impolite plumber?
  • cdolan 5y ago
    Hey thanks for actually answering my (somewhat rhetorical) question haha.
• pradn 5y ago
  It's reasonable for good journalistic organizations to have access to secret government records. They just need to be responsible with them. The same discussion happens any time there's a leak of intelligence/surveillance/military documents. What if the info puts soldiers at risk? Well, the ethics of that are up to the journalistic organization to tackle. They're the best equipped to do that, with their training and standards. Now if someone just sold the records to TMZ or something, that's a different conversation.
• seventytwo 5y ago
  Maybe we should fund and staff the IRS properly so that they can properly police and audit the wealthy unsteady of relying on “leaks”? It’s perfectly ok for the wealthy to lobby Congress so that the IRS is neutered, but when a person leaks their info, it’s a crime, huh? Seems like a double standard.
• smsm42 5y ago
  1. Don't worry, IRS has tons of data on you, but it's all secure, nobody gets access to it. 2. Oh, some journos hate you? Then it's totally OK to publish you data, that's a well known exception from privacy. 3. What? Punishing people that revealed private data? Are you crazy? It's the government, they don't get punished ever. But be sure all your private data is protected. Unless, of course, some journo dislikes you, then it's your own fault.