Millions of internal records have leaked from Britain's offshore financial industry, exposing for the first time the identities of thousands of holders of anonymous wealth from around the world, from presidents to plutocrats, the daughter of a notorious dictator and a British millionaire accused of concealing assets from his ex-wife.
Edit: whoops messed up the url while phone posting
If I'm understanding it correctly, they set up a bunch of fraudulent holding companies to launder money around the place. Then they set up some sorts of roundabout lawsuits against themselves for fraud. They pled guilty in court, and the companies got confiscated. Then they claimed _tax refunds on the losses because their companies got taken away_, and got $230 million back that way..
[edited] Whoa, I did not realise how much info got leaked
The files contain information on over 120,000 offshore entities — including shell corporations and legal structures known as trusts — involving people in over 170 countries. The leak amounts to 260 gigabytes of data, or 162 times larger than the U.S. State Department cables published by WikiLeaks in 2010.
Occasionally they release mosquitoes on other rich people, then they're ok.
Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
Lol if you aren't already killing and eating the rich
+8
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Protip: the rich, by and large, got that way be either being amoral monsters or being the slithering, slimy progeny of amoral monsters. Nine times out of ten it seems to me that material wealth walks hand in hand with having a rotten heart.
Protip: the rich, by and large, got that way be either being amoral monsters or being the slithering, slimy progeny of amoral monsters. Nine times out of ten it seems to me that material wealth walks hand in hand with having a rotten heart.
Protip: the rich, by and large, got that way be either being amoral monsters or being the slithering, slimy progeny of amoral monsters. Nine times out of ten it seems to me that material wealth walks hand in hand with having a rotten heart.
God damn it Metzger
+6
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
I got no illusions about the idea that rich people are more or less moral than the less-wealthy
Poor folk and middle class folk try to dodge taxes all the time too
But man sometimes you get a story like the one above and it makes my blood boil
Scale belies equivalency.
That's only true if you assume the difference in scale is due to choice on the part of the agent. Instead of simply not having the opportunity to be immoral on such a large scale.
I don't think it's totally unfair to say that there are obstacles on the path to becoming incredibly wealthy that are easier to overcome if you're able to silence that little voice in the back of your head that says 'whoa hey now, maybe we shouldn't do this'.
Not saying that all rich people are this way, or even the majority, but I do think there's a certain amount of amorality required to enjoy some of the more absurd examples of conspicuous consumption.
I'd like to think that, if I were rich, I'd still live very much the same life as I do now but who knows? It might just be part and parcel of having that much money - you don't have the same pressures and stresses as a 'normal' person, and maybe that's part of what keeps us all in check.
Well one thing that helps is that most often someone who is quite wealthy is often pretty smart, if only in a narrow field. And smart people are pretty good at thinking up a justification for their actions.
The other part, of course, is that the rich and powerful wield an absurd amount of political clout and rather than using that to better the nation and people that live there, by and large they try to make their already absurdly comfortable life a little more comfortable.
It's not universal - there are those who are extremely wealthy who -do- use that to fight for a better society because they recognize the debt that they owe the nation that allowed them to reach those heights. But it feels like there's a lot more apathy and clinging to the status quo than acting in the best interests of society's most marginalized. And that bugs me - I don't know how you can be worth several hundred million and not think 'hmm, maybe I should use this money to help people who are literally starving on the street'.
Shit, I feel guilty enough when I spent 250$ on something frivolous that I need to immediately cleanse my conscience by donating to -something-, because while I'm not rich I'm certainly comfortable and I can recognize the incredible amount of luck necessary to get where I am.
The other part, of course, is that the rich and powerful wield an absurd amount of political clout and rather than using that to better the nation and people that live there, by and large they try to make their already absurdly comfortable life a little more comfortable.
The other part, of course, is that the rich and powerful wield an absurd amount of political clout and rather than using that to better the nation and people that live there, by and large they try to make their already absurdly comfortable life a little more comfortable.
The other part, of course, is that the rich and powerful wield an absurd amount of political clout and rather than using that to better the nation and people that live there, by and large they try to make their already absurdly comfortable life a little more comfortable.
Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.
The other part, of course, is that the rich and powerful wield an absurd amount of political clout and rather than using that to better the nation and people that live there, by and large they try to make their already absurdly comfortable life a little more comfortable.
Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.
A straw man is when you misrepresent or exaggerate a position to make it easier to lampoon, criticize, dismiss, etc.
In this case, you sarcastically remark that he's evil, implying that the actions cited in the article do not actually make him an evil person. But the context of the quote tree is the assertion that rich folks often use their resources to serve their own expedience rather than affect good for others. You've suggested that Buffett stands counter to this assertion, likely based on his recent lobbying over tax rates, but it turns out he will disregard tax obligations to serve his own ends as well. This position does not insinuate that he is evil, but that his rhetorical position is somewhat vacuous, making it problematic for the purposes elected. So it becomes easier to over-simplify the concern and then hand-wave it away.
A straw man is when you misrepresent or exaggerate a position to make it easier to lampoon, criticize, dismiss, etc.
In this case, you sarcastically remark that he's evil, implying that the actions cited in the article do not actually make him an evil person. But the context of the quote tree is the assertion that rich folks often use their resources to serve their own expedience rather than affect good for others. You've suggested that Buffett stands counter to this assertion, likely based on his recent lobbying over tax rates, but it turns out he will disregard tax obligations to serve his own ends as well. This position does not insinuate that he is evil, but that his rhetorical position is somewhat vacuous, making it problematic for the purposes elected. So it becomes easier to over-simplify the concern and then hand-wave it away.
On the other hand, the tone has clearly been "fuck rich people, they're all assholes" so it seems pretty dishonest to then complain about him lampooning such a position. I mean, Dich and Phar went there first, so to speak. So it's not like they can really stand on the moral high ground about keeping the discussion totally legitimate and not strawmanning at all.
It's just fucking absurd to complain about someone strawmanning when the position that's being "strawmanned" is, "fuck all rich assholes and if you don't hate all rich assholes then fuck you also".
Posts
I was just going to post a follow up about a hentai shortage due to you
Edit: whoops messed up the url while phone posting
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/offshore-tax-havens/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/icij-map/
one example:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/04/ctl-magnitsky.html
If I'm understanding it correctly, they set up a bunch of fraudulent holding companies to launder money around the place. Then they set up some sorts of roundabout lawsuits against themselves for fraud. They pled guilty in court, and the companies got confiscated. Then they claimed _tax refunds on the losses because their companies got taken away_, and got $230 million back that way..
[edited] Whoa, I did not realise how much info got leaked
Occasionally they release mosquitoes on other rich people, then they're ok.
But I wish they would quit acting a fool and instead act like we're all in this together, since we basiclaly are
And if they don't get on board we should cannibalize them
Oh you kids.
Poor folk and middle class folk try to dodge taxes all the time too
But man sometimes you get a story like the one above and it makes my blood boil
God damn it Metzger
Scale belies equivalency.
That's only true if you assume the difference in scale is due to choice on the part of the agent. Instead of simply not having the opportunity to be immoral on such a large scale.
Not saying that all rich people are this way, or even the majority, but I do think there's a certain amount of amorality required to enjoy some of the more absurd examples of conspicuous consumption.
I'd like to think that, if I were rich, I'd still live very much the same life as I do now but who knows? It might just be part and parcel of having that much money - you don't have the same pressures and stresses as a 'normal' person, and maybe that's part of what keeps us all in check.
It's not universal - there are those who are extremely wealthy who -do- use that to fight for a better society because they recognize the debt that they owe the nation that allowed them to reach those heights. But it feels like there's a lot more apathy and clinging to the status quo than acting in the best interests of society's most marginalized. And that bugs me - I don't know how you can be worth several hundred million and not think 'hmm, maybe I should use this money to help people who are literally starving on the street'.
Shit, I feel guilty enough when I spent 250$ on something frivolous that I need to immediately cleanse my conscience by donating to -something-, because while I'm not rich I'm certainly comfortable and I can recognize the incredible amount of luck necessary to get where I am.
checkmate, proletariat
well, except for Warren Buffett
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html
So evil!
Good straw man.
but rich people own prisons... some of em.
edit: yeah yeah, corporations, but corporations are people my friend.
I'm so proud of you
well someone has to lock up all the amoral penniless burglars and vagrants
A straw man is when you misrepresent or exaggerate a position to make it easier to lampoon, criticize, dismiss, etc.
In this case, you sarcastically remark that he's evil, implying that the actions cited in the article do not actually make him an evil person. But the context of the quote tree is the assertion that rich folks often use their resources to serve their own expedience rather than affect good for others. You've suggested that Buffett stands counter to this assertion, likely based on his recent lobbying over tax rates, but it turns out he will disregard tax obligations to serve his own ends as well. This position does not insinuate that he is evil, but that his rhetorical position is somewhat vacuous, making it problematic for the purposes elected. So it becomes easier to over-simplify the concern and then hand-wave it away.
I honestly can't tell if this is facetious or not
but
thanks regardless, I guess?
On the other hand, the tone has clearly been "fuck rich people, they're all assholes" so it seems pretty dishonest to then complain about him lampooning such a position. I mean, Dich and Phar went there first, so to speak. So it's not like they can really stand on the moral high ground about keeping the discussion totally legitimate and not strawmanning at all.
Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
eat the poor
eat the middle class