Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (onlyinboards)      Join Date: Oct 2014       04-04-2016, 1:31 PM Reply   
thoughts?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35918844
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       04-04-2016, 5:03 PM Reply   
Rich guys don't pay tax, hardly a news flash.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-05-2016, 6:01 AM Reply   
So far I haven't heard anything other than that lots of people have used a respected panamanian law firm to form panamanian shell corps. There's nothing particularly damning or mindblowing about that IMHO. I would assume that they are mostly set up to keep offshore money offshore, or to own offshore assets.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-06-2016, 5:09 AM Reply   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0mAwRAFC2U
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       04-06-2016, 6:36 AM Reply   
I always find it interesting when middle class, upper middle class, or rich people on the lower end of rich defend these types of actions while complaining about how high their taxes are. When the richest of the rich don't pay taxes, it means that the rest of us who have money must pay more. Notice that I said people who have money. Trying to get more tax income from the poor is like trying to squeeze water out of a rock. They don't have any money which is why they are poor. If you want to pay less, someone else with money will have to pay more. If they are using a "respected Panamanian law firm to form shell corps" legally and we allow this action to continue .... well I guess you'll have to pay their share of the tax burden. If you're OK with this, then you need to quit whining about how high your taxes are.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-06-2016, 7:49 AM Reply   
let's distinguish legal from illegal. Using a domestic or offshore entity to illegally conceal assets or income is a crime. Nobody should be defending or encouraging that.

Legally keeping assets in an entity, domestic or foreign, is not a crime. It could be a crime if we make it a crime, but it's not a crime now. Keeping the owners of an entity private is also not a crime. We could make it a crime, but it's not a crime now.

This idea that a "shell corporation" is a bad thing is silly. Honestly, I can't even articulate to you what it means. Is a shell corporation a corporation with only one stockholder (legal)? Or a corporation that owns assets but doesn't have active operations (legal)? Or one that acts as a manager or general partner for a LLC or a limited partnership (legal)?
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       04-06-2016, 10:54 AM Reply   
I don't know what is legal or illegal and I have no idea if a shell corporation is bad or good. What I do know is that any method, legal or illegal, that allows billionaires to keep from having to pay taxes on income means that I have to pay more tax on my income. I don't think that I pay too much tax in exchange for the benefits of government that I receive but, then again, I'm not the one complaining about my taxes.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-06-2016, 11:32 AM Reply   
Anything that takes money out of the US economy is a threat to our national security. It has nothing to do with legality. It's a matter of economic principal. Flow of money to and from other countries should be balanced. If there is an imbalance with any country or corp whether it's trade or otherwise, then there is an issue that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately it seems that people can't seem to think in terms of fundamental principals.

If other countries are ok with the fed printing money and giving it to the US govt instead of the govt having to borrow it, then an economic deficit might be tolerable. But of course that has other related issues. But going into massive debt while sending the money to other countries has a fairly predicable bad conclusion.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       04-06-2016, 11:33 AM Reply   
The government isn't going to lower your taxes if they receive more money. they will just find new ways to spend it.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-06-2016, 12:16 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Anything that takes money out of the US economy is a threat to our national security. It has nothing to do with legality. It's a matter of economic principal. Flow of money to and from other countries should be balanced. If there is an imbalance with any country or corp whether it's trade or otherwise, then there is an issue that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately it seems that people can't seem to think in terms of fundamental principals.

If other countries are ok with the fed printing money and giving it to the US govt instead of the govt having to borrow it, then an economic deficit might be tolerable. But of course that has other related issues. But going into massive debt while sending the money to other countries has a fairly predicable bad conclusion.
John you and I generally agree but if we are talking about individuals and wealth preservation, I'm not sure I agree that an american owning a summer home in costa rica or quebec, or a condo in cabo, is a "threat to national security."

Shoot, I guess you could argue spring break in cancun and the terrorists win?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-06-2016, 4:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
John you and I generally agree but if we are talking about individuals and wealth preservation, I'm not sure I agree that an american owning a summer home in costa rica or quebec, or a condo in cabo, is a "threat to national security."

Shoot, I guess you could argue spring break in cancun and the terrorists win?
Being short isn't great just because you're the last one to get wet when it rains
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-08-2016, 6:11 AM Reply   
How do you guys feel about the fact that this stuff was released? I get the vibe from media reports that people think that this stuff should be open to public review?

Is this disclosure of confidential legal information different from the iphone cracking dispute? If so, how?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-08-2016, 6:13 AM Reply   
If I was a mushroom I wouldn't like it.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-08-2016, 7:36 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
If I was a mushroom I wouldn't like it.
But isn't that the same slippery slope in every privacy issue? Only people with something to hide need to be free from govt surveillance, right?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-08-2016, 8:10 AM Reply   
Well, laws were changed as a result of the Snowden leak. That's pretty much an indication that illegal leaks aren't necessarily all bad. And nobody was arrested despite the disaster that the banking/insurance industry meltdown caused with the economy. So that's pretty much a good indication that legal does not equal just fine. Also it appears that not all the activity leaked here was legal or ethical. Weren't not talking about identity theft and fraud.

And IMO the slippery slope on privacy took a much bigger hit when it was decided the police could bust into your home without a warrant as long as they say they heard evidence being destroyed. Not that anyone could even say what that sounds like. And lastly, what does it matter how we feel? There were either laws being broken in the leak or there weren't. If it was illegal then why bother discussing if we think it's ok. If there weren't laws broken... as you've indicated before your opinion on right vs wrong depends heavily on it's illegality.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       04-08-2016, 9:20 AM Reply   
so you see no inherent goodness in privacy merely for the sake of privacy? everyone should be OK with public disclosure of their assets? the number of guns they have? their legal sexual preferences?

"none of your business" is never a reasonable answer?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-08-2016, 10:56 AM Reply   
"no goodness"

Of course I see an inherent goodness in privacy. But when information is exposed that illuminates the mind on what is happening I don't recommend covering your eyes and ears.

"everyone should be ok"

If the issue here was ordinary people going about their lives that have little individual impact on the economy then there is absolutely no good in their privacy being exposed. But if information that is exposed creates a new attitude about policy I'm not really crying in my beer about the breach in privacy. And it seems that you want us to be doing just that.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       04-08-2016, 11:45 AM Reply   
So basically, if you are operating within the confines of the law but you are rich, **** your privacy because you are not trying to give up more of your money to help the collective.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-08-2016, 1:09 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
So basically, if you are operating within the confines of the law but you are rich, **** your privacy because you are not trying to give up more of your money to help the collective.
I don't know. Is that the law? You tell me.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us