Panama Papers: biggest leak in history published by German newspaper

[lkv]

Large corporations don't give a flying <deleted> about shareholders interests. Their goal is to manage shareholders, not protect their interests. I worked at the board level of a couple of very large corporations and I can assure you all they care about is themselves ... the top level management team. Aside from which it should be blindingly obvious, based on the behaviors of large corporations, they seldom to never act in the shareholder of public interest. The fact that the behaviour of corporations occasionally coincides with what shareholders also want is just happy circumstance. Big Corporations spend a great deal of time on tax avoidance schemes that are within the letter of the law. Have you thought for a second how these tax avoidance schemes came into being? They exist because large Corporations lobby and pay the law-makers in government to have these tax regulations passed into law. Meanwhile, large corporations avoid paying their fair share of the country tax burden. This is in a country where other tax payers fund roads, security, markets, government ete (all the things that make doing business possible). The double standard is the way Corporations and wealthy people are treated vs the average working person. The Panama papers are not even the tip of the iceberg ... you will only see a few small fish netted in this. If you imagine that you live in a world where the wealth of the middle class is not being squeezed into the pockets of corporations and the wealthy then you would have to be drinking the Kool Aid they are feeding you.

Well then if you are contributing to a private pension fund better speak to your fund manager and advise him to stop investing your money in companies with no moral responsability.

Edited April 5, 2016 by metisdead

[chilli42]

Large corporations don't give a flying <deleted> about shareholders interests. Their goal is to manage shareholders, not protect their interests. I worked at the board level of a couple of very large corporations and I can assure you all they care about is themselves ... the top level management team. Aside from which it should be blindingly obvious, based on the behaviors of large corporations, they seldom to never act in the shareholder of public interest. The fact that the behaviour of corporations occasionally coincides with what shareholders also want is just happy circumstance. Big Corporations spend a great deal of time on tax avoidance schemes that are within the letter of the law. Have you thought for a second how these tax avoidance schemes came into being? They exist because large Corporations lobby and pay the law-makers in government to have these tax regulations passed into law. Meanwhile, large corporations avoid paying their fair share of the country tax burden. This is in a country where other tax payers fund roads, security, markets, government ete (all the things that make doing business possible). The double standard is the way Corporations and wealthy people are treated vs the average working person. The Panama papers are not even the tip of the iceberg ... you will only see a few small fish netted in this. If you imagine that you live in a world where the wealth of the middle class is not being squeezed into the pockets of corporations and the wealthy then you would have to be drinking the Kool Aid they are feeding you.

You worked for the wrong companies. I also worked at the "board" level for many companies. Profits were absolutely important. But not at the risk of major social issues. Many of the board members were serious philanthropists. With no strings attached. Can't paint everybody with the same brush. There are good people and bad people out there.

You are no doubt correct. There must be some who are paragons of virtue. It's just that I saw very few of this directly or indirectly through associates and industry groups. The focus was more on giving the appearance of action on social issues. Never once did I hear tax avoidance as something to be frowned upon.

[chilli42]

Large corporations don't give a flying <deleted> about shareholders interests. Their goal is to manage shareholders, not protect their interests. I worked at the board level of a couple of very large corporations and I can assure you all they care about is themselves ... the top level management team. Aside from which it should be blindingly obvious, based on the behaviors of large corporations, they seldom to never act in the shareholder of public interest. The fact that the behaviour of corporations occasionally coincides with what shareholders also want is just happy circumstance. Big Corporations spend a great deal of time on tax avoidance schemes that are within the letter of the law. Have you thought for a second how these tax avoidance schemes came into being? They exist because large Corporations lobby and pay the law-makers in government to have these tax regulations passed into law. Meanwhile, large corporations avoid paying their fair share of the country tax burden. This is in a country where other tax payers fund roads, security, markets, government ete (all the things that make doing business possible). The double standard is the way Corporations and wealthy people are treated vs the average working person. The Panama papers are not even the tip of the iceberg ... you will only see a few small fish netted in this. If you imagine that you live in a world where the wealth of the middle class is not being squeezed into the pockets of corporations and the wealthy then you would have to be drinking the Kool Aid they are feeding you.

Well then if you are contributing to a private pension fund better speak to your fund manager and advise him to stop investing your money in companies with no moral responsability.

That is an excellent point! Though to be effective, those fund managers need the fear of numbers to motivate them. Some public employee groups are becoming quite effective at doing this. As for myself, I cashed out upon retirement and self manage my own funds. Corporate ethics aside, legal avoidance schemes must be closed down. They follow the letter of the law but in spirit are unethical. Elizabeth Warren is on the right track.

[lkv]

That is an excellent point! Though to be effective, those fund managers need the fear of numbers to motivate them. Some public employee groups are becoming quite effective at doing this. As for myself, I cashed out upon retirement and self manage my own funds. Corporate ethics aside, legal avoidance schemes must be closed down. They follow the letter of the law but in spirit are unethical. Elizabeth Warren is on the right track.

Won't happen. People writing the laws are using them themselves.

[Mosha]

China is blocking this story, be glad you can read about the corruption of your rich and powerful.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[MrTee]

The Government of Iceland is being dissolved. .

The prime minister of Iceland has asked the president to dissolve parliament after allegations he concealed millions of dollars worth of investments in an offshore company.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35966412

Edited April 5, 2016 by MrTee

[schondie]

The Government of Iceland is being dissolved. .

The prime minister of Iceland has asked the president to dissolve parliament after allegations he concealed millions of dollars worth of investments in an offshore company.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35966412

Good job on the Icelandic citizens to come out in force yesterday.

I saw earlier that David Cameron said he's family's tax matters are a "private matter". I hope any British working class person who gets caught taking cash in hand work also says "It's a private matter".

[jayboy]

The Government of Iceland is being dissolved. .

The prime minister of Iceland has asked the president to dissolve parliament after allegations he concealed millions of dollars worth of investments in an offshore company.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35966412

Good job on the Icelandic citizens to come out in force yesterday.

I saw earlier that David Cameron said he's family's tax matters are a "private matter". I hope any British working class person who gets caught taking cash in hand work also says "It's a private matter".

Fairly incoherent post since David Cameron is not guilty of any financial misdemeanour.He has also confirmed he has no investments at all apart from his house and his savings.

His great crime I suspect in the eyes of some of the forum British expatriates is that he is an "easy in his own skin" unashamed toff with high intelligence and social poise.Strangely these expats often grovel before the Thai equivalent of David Cameron's background - but don't see the irony of doing so.They can't help loathing the English upper class.

[Scotwight]

In China it is against the law to take more than $50,000 out per year. They got that dude's family dead on.

[Scotwight]

One thing you won't see is anyone from Thailand on that list!

Wrong on that one, In fact, the Panama Papers include at least 780 names of individuals and another 50 names of companies based in Thailand. Why would you think no Thais would be involved ?

Edited April 5, 2016 by Scotwight

[pistachios]

"I use an offshore corporation to make international business in conjunction with tax residence in a country that doesn't tax income realized abroad."

You are using an unconventional (legal or not, that's not the point) structure in order to pay the least amount of tax possible. This look like and smells like tax evasion.

It smells like tax evasion only to people that are not aware of the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Tax noncompliance if you prefer.

[lkv]

In China it is against the law to take more than $50,000 out per year. They got that dude's family dead on.

No worries. Chinese are inventive. Swipe your card 800 times and buy insurance that you can cash out later.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-28/swiping-cards-800-times-way-to-beat-china-s-money-outflow-curbs

[lkv]

Tax noncompliance if you prefer.

I prefer "minimizing tax exposure".

[MrTee]

The Government of Iceland is being dissolved. .

The prime minister of Iceland has asked the president to dissolve parliament after allegations he concealed millions of dollars worth of investments in an offshore company.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35966412

Good job on the Icelandic citizens to come out in force yesterday.

I saw earlier that David Cameron said he's family's tax matters are a "private matter". I hope any British working class person who gets caught taking cash in hand work also says "It's a private matter".

Fairly incoherent post since David Cameron is not guilty of any financial misdemeanour.He has also confirmed he has no investments at all apart from his house and his savings.

His great crime I suspect in the eyes of some of the forum British expatriates is that he is an "easy in his own skin" unashamed toff with high intelligence and social poise.Strangely these expats often grovel before the Thai equivalent of David Cameron's background - but don't see the irony of doing so.They can't help loathing the English upper class.

Nothing incoherent in Schondie's post - I can understand it perfectly well. On the other hand your lack of punctuation does leave your rejoinder somewhat lacking, but I get your point.

Cameron has been shown to be a liar on many occasions. He has constantly lied about the UK economy - I see no reason to believe what he is saying now.

If he truly has nothing to hide, then he'll have no hesitation in making his tax affairs public.

[chilli42]

One thing you won't see is anyone from Thailand on that list!

Wrong on that one, In fact, the Panama Papers include at least 780 names of individuals and another 50 names of companies based in Thailand. Why would you think no Thais would be involved ?

Umm, because everything is clean and above board in Thailand. it was meant as a bit of scarcasim. I would have had to rethink my whole view of the country had there been no names from Thaiand on that list. What would surprise me is if anyone from Thailand were to be called to account as a result.

[Lannig]

One thing you won't see is anyone from Thailand on that list!

Wrong on that one, In fact, the Panama Papers include at least 780 names of individuals and another 50 names of companies based in Thailand. Why would you think no Thais would be involved ?

Umm, because everything is clean and above board in Thailand. it was meant as a bit of scarcasim. I would have had to rethink my whole view of the country had there been no names from Thaiand on that list. What would surprise me is if anyone from Thailand were to be called to account as a result.

I think that's it's so easy for rich people to evade tax in Thailand that they don't even need to offshore their assets.

[lannarebirth]

[lkv]

In regards to the Youtube video posted.

Does anybody know the definition of hypocrisy?

"US overtakes Caymans and Singapore as haven for assets of super-rich"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/02/united-states-overtakes-caymans-singapore-tax-haven-financial-secrecy-index

Edited April 5, 2016 by lkv

[lannarebirth]

In regards to the Youtube video posted.

Does anybody know the definition of hypocrisy?

"US overtakes Caymans and Singapore as haven for assets of super-rich"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/02/united-states-overtakes-caymans-singapore-tax-haven-financial-secrecy-index

Not sure what I posted has to do with this. There's no hypocrisy here. The Senator was warning against the US becoming involved with tax evasion/avoidance by adopting a treaty that made some schemes lawful.

I think you'll find with a 17 Trillion dollar economy the US will lead many lists having to do with many things.

[lkv]

The hypocrisy results from the US demanding other countries to provide information on accounts held by US citizens worldwide, whereas if say a Chinese would hold 1 billion dollars in Delaware, his privacy would be protected.

Edited April 5, 2016 by lkv

[lannarebirth]

The hypocrisy results from the US demanding other countries to provide information on accounts held by US citizens worldwide, whereas if say a Chinese would hold 1 billion dollars in Delaware, his privacy would be protected.

Provide a warrant or court order and just watch how little protection account holders have, Americans included.

Edited April 5, 2016 by lannarebirth

[lkv]

The hypocrisy results from the US demanding other countries to provide information on accounts held by US citizens worldwide, whereas if say a Chinese would hold 1 billion dollars in Delaware, his privacy would be protected.

Provide a warrant and just watch how little protection account holders have, Americans included.

I'm excluding American citizens here, I am talking about non-US citizens, non-residents, using offshore facilities in the US.

You just can't believe US is that hypocrite, can you?

Ok then, listen to what the Senator is telling you there.

And don't worry, UK would top the list if related jurisdictions are included.

Edited April 5, 2016 by lkv

[johnatong]

I admit my ignorance and naivety !

I had (until very recently) been unaware of the scale of Sanctions Targets of the UK

Here it is 153 pages worth ! http://hmt-sanctions.s3.amazonaws.com/sanctionsconlist.pdf

I despair having worked and paid taxes for so many years and at the same time watching and wondering about the huge sums of money poured, in the form of AID , into corrupt regimes/countries paid for by my and other peoples money.

Why was I not aware sooner ?

Perhaps the conspiracy theorists were correct?

This may appear to be a bit of a ramble, if so accept my apologies, please ---------------------I need some time to gather my thoughts.

Edited April 5, 2016 by johnatong

[jpinx]

One can list many similar concepts, and their "legality" -- but none of them are morally justifiable. The fact that a law exists does not make it "right". Laws exist for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men - (quote) and a wise man understands the moral obligation in creating wealth. Money is not a passport to wisdom and happiness. Enlightenment comes from living a moral life - not from the unsolicited teachings of a materialist.

Examples of the morality (or lack of it) are highlighted by the howls of protest when Starbucks/Google/etc were exposed for paying virtually no tax in EU/UK -- all perfectly legal, all worked out by bean counters and lawyers -- but the public outrage exposed the iniquitous lack of morality in such "legal" schemes. Their wrath was directed at the companies, but it might have been better used against the inept law-makers.

This is not a direct comparison of corporate tax structuring versus personal investment and taxation so don't start throwing apples and pears at me, but it *is* a classic example of immoral laws allowing immoral activity.

big corporate business does not and has never cared for morality. fact is that nowadays politicians / lawmakers are more than ever dancing to the tunes and move according to the strings pulled by globally acting puppet masters. the 2008 crisis and its aftermath are perfect examples for my claim.

Take the example of BP and the compensation they are paying for the Gulf of Mexico spill. They have bent over backwards to comply with all the cases, many of them spurious, and have earmarked losses to reflect this. The reality is that they have taken the corporate moral high ground.

[lkv]

I admit my ignorance and naivety !

I had (until very recently) been unaware of the scale of Sanctions Targets of the UK

Here it is 153 pages worth ! http://hmt-sanctions.s3.amazonaws.com/sanctionsconlist.pdf

I despair having worked and paid taxes for so many years and at the same time watching and wondering about the huge sums of money poured, in the form of AID , into corrupt regimes/countries paid for by my and other peoples money.

Why was I not aware sooner ?

Perhaps the conspiracy theorists were correct?

This may appear to be a bit of a ramble, if so accept my apologies, please ---------------------I need some time to gather my thoughts.

You mean the scale of sanctions is small. You are right.

A PDF of 153 pages may appear comprehensive, but it barely scratches the surface.

But it's all good. The money is back in the UK now.

UK sends foreign aid. Foreign aid gets embezzled. It comes back to the UK in the form of a luxury property in London owned by an offshore entity.

[lkv]

Take the example of BP and the compensation they are paying for the Gulf of Mexico spill. They have bent over backwards to comply with all the cases, many of them spurious, and have earmarked losses to reflect this. The reality is that they have taken the corporate moral high ground.

Sorry, I hate to be such a party pooper.

"Among the biggest hoarders of subsidiaries - with 85 in ultra-secret jurisdictions, according to Companies House - is BP. In an ironic twist, its head of tax, John Bartlett, was this month appointed by the Government to sit on a study group on tax avoidance. According to the Treasury, the group 'is part of the Government's commitment to tackling tax avoidance and building sustainable defences to address long-standing avoidance risks'."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1711339/Revealed-Tax-havens-of-the-top-20-UK-companies.html

Edited April 5, 2016 by lkv

[jpinx]

Take the example of BP and the compensation they are paying for the Gulf of Mexico spill. They have bent over backwards to comply with all the cases, many of them spurious, and have earmarked losses to reflect this. The reality is that they have taken the corporate moral high ground.

Sorry, I hate to be such a party pooper.

"Among the biggest hoarders of subsidiaries - with 85 in ultra-secret jurisdictions, according to Companies House - is BP. In an ironic twist, its head of tax, John Bartlett, was this month appointed by the Government to sit on a study group on tax avoidance. According to the Treasury, the group 'is part of the Government's commitment to tackling tax avoidance and building sustainable defences to address long-standing avoidance risks'."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1711339/Revealed-Tax-havens-of-the-top-20-UK-companies.html

A partial quote is very misleading. Here's the rest about BP ---

".........A spokesman for BP said it had only 67 companies registered in offshore territories. 'Bermuda and Luxembourg together account for two-thirds of these - Bermuda mostly because many BP Shipping-related companies are based there and Luxembourg because of our pan-European trading and marketing activities,' he said........"

Further -- the source and integrity of the "investigation" are not disclosed

".........A Financial Mail investigation has today revealed more than 1,000 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens are operated by Britain's 20 biggest companies. ...."

Edited April 5, 2016 by jpinx

[lkv]

Take the example of BP and the compensation they are paying for the Gulf of Mexico spill. They have bent over backwards to comply with all the cases, many of them spurious, and have earmarked losses to reflect this. The reality is that they have taken the corporate moral high ground.

Sorry, I hate to be such a party pooper.

"Among the biggest hoarders of subsidiaries - with 85 in ultra-secret jurisdictions, according to Companies House - is BP. In an ironic twist, its head of tax, John Bartlett, was this month appointed by the Government to sit on a study group on tax avoidance. According to the Treasury, the group 'is part of the Government's commitment to tackling tax avoidance and building sustainable defences to address long-standing avoidance risks'."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1711339/Revealed-Tax-havens-of-the-top-20-UK-companies.html

A partial quote is very misleading. Here's the rest about BP ---

".........A spokesman for BP said it had only 67 companies registered in offshore territories. 'Bermuda and Luxembourg together account for two-thirds of these - Bermuda mostly because many BP Shipping-related companies are based there and Luxembourg because of our pan-European trading and marketing activities,' he said........"

Further -- the source and integrity of the "investigation" are not disclosed

".........A Financial Mail investigation has today revealed more than 1,000 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens are operated by Britain's 20 biggest companies. ...."

You said they have taken the moral corporate high ground. I find that statement slightly misleading.

Big companies show people sometimes what they want to see. People are upset that Starbucks diverts the intellectual property on coffee and avoids UK tax? Ok, let's throw a settlement there to make them shut up.

That's pretty much how moral responsability is defined nowadays.

Bermuda because many BP shipping companies are based there. Lol. Give me a break. Some tax avoidance schemes state that the center of interest has to be in that particular jurisdiction.

Microsoft's intellectual property is held in Bermuda.

Edited April 5, 2016 by lkv

[keemapoot]

I doubt if they Bliars are going to get outed in this. It seems incredible that none of the Bush clan or the Clintons are mentioned either so far.

Unless the whole lot of the papers are put online for everybody to search I doubt any of the friends of Soros, Rockerfeller and other sponsors of the ICIJ are going to get found out.

I'm hoping there's some ethical hackers out there already downloading as many files as possible unless the information is stored on an air gapped computer.

Here's an article that explains why few Americans are implicated:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/panama-papers-why-no-americans-193702690.html

Very interesting. I met with a lawyer years ago about setting up an offshore account. Wink, wink, nod, nod...we can also help you save on taxes. LOL The fees were ridiculous.

I like this comment:

Tax experts generally identify three categories of people who seek global tax havens: criminals; “politically exposed persons,” or PEPs, who enrich themselves while holding office and need to hide the money; and regular rich folk who want to conceal assets from family members, ex-spouses and the like. Many of the characters who turned up in the Panama Papers appear to be PEPs who are more interested in keeping cash from public view than minimizing the tax bills on legitimate income.

There are many, many categories of viable and legitimate reasons for offshoring for international businesses, businessmen, and high net worth investors. It' rarely worthwhile to discuss on a public forum because of the widely held belief that if you're hiding something from anybody, you are doing something nefarious.

For example, Marc Rich, and other international oil and commodity traders would often use offshore vehicles for their oil trades, because if something went wrong on these huge transactions with any underlying physical transaction, the risks, penalties, and litigation can be monstrous, such as penalties of demurrage on oil tankers if you send one to a port and the oil is not there through no fault of your own. So, using offshore vehicles limits liability on particular transactions, and especially when you are in high litigation risk business. It's just biz.

At the same time, keeping assets in other jurisdictions limits the reach of potential frivolous litigation by enemies who wish to destroy you financially, but whose lawsuits otherwise have little merit.

For high net worthers, easy to move money around for big deals or investments, easier to access private banking expertise through these networks, and many other legitimate, legal, non-immoral uses.

None of these factors matter though once people with little understanding of big money movements start on moralistic attacks based on their small frames of reference.

And, of course, as this Panama revelation shows, many supicious aand probably corrupt uses for offshore banks as well.

[lannarebirth]

The hypocrisy results from the US demanding other countries to provide information on accounts held by US citizens worldwide, whereas if say a Chinese would hold 1 billion dollars in Delaware, his privacy would be protected.

Provide a warrant and just watch how little protection account holders have, Americans included.

I'm excluding American citizens here, I am talking about non-US citizens, non-residents, using offshore facilities in the US.

You just can't believe US is that hypocrite, can you?

Ok then, listen to what the Senator is telling you there.

And don't worry, UK would top the list if related jurisdictions are included.

Listen man. I can believe all manner of US hypocrisy. I've been witness to a lot of it. The only point of my post, and maybe it would have been better posted in the US presidential primary thread, or not at all, was that one of the candidates, who also doesn't like US hypocrisy, had warned against this very thing. Beyond that single caveat, feel free to speak your truth as you see it..

Edited April 5, 2016 by lannarebirth