pau
Rising Star
Man, what side of the bed did I get out of today, or what? :d
Two things going on here:
1. There may be a few law firms around the world acting illegally, and a few politicians and oligarchs complicit with their suddenly wealthy friends, who are worthy of the label "evil bastard", or "evil 1%", or "evil .01%". However embarrassing this may be for these firms and their clients, at the bottom of it is 1a) a bunch of legal laws passed by elected (maybe legally, maybe not) representatives (maybe representative, maybe not so much), getting election support from powerful constituents or anyone else who wants to buy a little influence, or pay some dues under the counter.
It is no secret that are large numbers of respectable law firms around the world that help the wealthy to legally set up barriers to legally reduce your taxes ... anybody with $$$ can take advantage of it and you can be sure 99% of them, including politicians and media titans, all of whom help decide what we hear and read, do so because it's legal and makes sense. Maybe not just with Mossack Fonseca. You can bet that politicians of all stripes (even Bernie, tho I'd be surprised if he has more than a Living Trust, or maybe an A/B trust) and ALL governments know who these specialized law firms are, and who their many of their clients are, and could prosecute them at any time if they wanted to, but that would be a waste of expensive government funds since the vast majority of these firms carefully operate within the letter of the law....and likely help support those very governments. After all, some of the best legal minds put these structures together ... when you have money, keeping it safe is a priority, just as is trying to repressing the will of those who would take or tax your money away (which can be done both legally and illegally). Getting money, and keeping it safe....peas in a pod. The legal high end product like a Solomon's Island Trust can be very expensive ... but like all other products, you get what you pay for.
2. So I'm prone to think that except in a few cases, prosecuting these firms would lead to no convictions. Maybe a few resignations or votes-out-of-office of embarrassed people from their jobs for things that were actually illegal, or maybe just for some exceptionally embarrassing things they did, but few if any convictions. Let the politicians change the laws if they want, but you know they will simply replace one set of asset protections with another (one that will take the public another 50 years to catch up with).
3. So what this boils down to for me is that this is mostly about some groups of people upset that other groups have some stuff (even legally-acquired stuff, that is legally-protected) than others do ... and don't care for those other groups, either. If the lawyers and politicians and media giants aren't helping to really change things, then in some countries we're still allowed to make life as difficult as legally possible for them ... like embarrassing them with (legal?) leaks from the computer of the Solomon Islands tribal chief who happens to be somebody's executor and trustee. "Right" or "wrong", it's still mostly legal to embarrass people in this country unless you also punch them in the face: Hulk Hogan's $140MM lottery ticket is likely to turn to ash on appeal. But there appears to be plenty of "I don't like you guys and want what you haves" floating around this leak and the subsequent discussion about it ... but "i want what you have" is very different from "what you are doing is illegal and immoral". Its just another form of ideological marketing and posturing....it reminds me of more than one particular current presidential candidate. Or perhaps change will come in the form of these "gray" laws, where, depending on the politicians in charge at the time, it can be interpreted in a variety of ways, intentionally so. Think, housing crisis.
----------------
----------------
Hmmmmm: is it worth separating "run of the mill" tax loopholes, such as a Living Trust which can help many homeowners save a lot of money, but it's still a legally approved loophole that instead, with the political will, could help poor people eat, from the more extreme (but still legal until they aren't) trusts and privacy structures set up in postage-stamp-sized principalities irrevocably managed by a council run by some headhunting chief sworn to secrecy? Is there a borderline out there somewhere that makes some loopholes good or OK, and some only for the evil-doers? Does the law have a lot of catching up to do here? Are these issues too thorny to solved by wealthy politicians? Maybe its too much to expect to pay an elected official to do something that takes money out of his pocket? Duh....
In all likelihood the legal basis of every single one of these evil .1-of-1% -rich guy-screwing-you-tax-loopholes was voted on and approved by somewhere between half and all of our elected representatives. Sure, sometimes politicians make it hard on purpose to blame them for doing this stuff ... for example, there's always another unrelated, attention-grabbing proposed law mysteriously appearing on the same bill that makes it Class 1 Felony to kick your grandmother ... who's going to vote against THAT?
Well known political leaders, the vast majority of whom are very well off, go on TV The last few days saying how insidious corporations and "the rich" are for reducing their taxes (or for blaming the recent negative publicity on lies spread by enemies), but just try and find out how they and their friends (and families!) have protected their wealth and/or enriched themselves during a period of political control. Don't expect much help from our overhyped "free press": the media won't sort this our for us, because they'll be blackballed at some politician's next press conference (and long thereafter) if they do... and forget about any "news tips" coming your way ... this has already been happening in the current election cycle ... because one way or another, Mr. Reporter, news tips and front-row seats at my press conference aren't free!
Its not just tax loopholes, there are all sorts of other legal loopholes for special interest people approved by our elected officials that screw everybody else, even the poor ... you just pump enough $$ into the right MC's campaigns and hope they don't switch sides for a few years. Of course elected officials, regardless of political affiliation or branch of economics they profess to believe in, do not go around broadcasting how they shelter THEIR MONEY and that of their extended family and friends, or we'd vote them out of office (if that's even possible) ... then we have outright government grants to companies run by politically connected friends and families, or the granting of valuable contracts, or special laws set up just for the families of important political leaders. All of this happens regularly in the U.S. ... God knows how much more so in other parts of the world, tho I would guess the percentage of GNPs skimmed off the top in some other counties is astronomically higher.
As difficult as it is to measure wealth (however acquired), and especially family wealth, it should come as no surprise that only 1 US family appears on most lists of the top 10 worldwide wealthy families. They're mostly in Europe and Asia and other parts of the Americas, from areas where wealth protection has as much as a 2000 year head start, and a distinguished history. Or, Google "trillionaires", and read about extended networks of uber-wealthy who manage to stay off the lists. Think about it, those people have a real protection issue, and I am grateful to not wake up every day thinking about that.
disclosure: I am not a 1%er, or 10%er....I don't even know if I have a percentage at all...tho I may have been in the top 50% for the better years of my working life. I've never had a trust or needed one. For the time being, I still think that countries that offer me a voteable choice between two separate mafia/warlord groups is more likely to offer a chance for a better life and more opportunities, and to feel safer, and do the things I like that don't hurt other people, than a country that has only one mafia/warlord group. And for that matter, the Panama Papers show that even international theocrats and oligarchs prefer the multiMafia world when they have real important stuff to do. But the way things are going, I think our dual-warlord society is quickly going the way of the single-warlord country. Then what!?!?
Fortunately, it's all like a big award winning movie, including one's thoughts about it, the screen, and projector ... even the photons and the theater where it appears to be showing. Be Content! Laugh! :thumb_up:
Two things going on here:
1. There may be a few law firms around the world acting illegally, and a few politicians and oligarchs complicit with their suddenly wealthy friends, who are worthy of the label "evil bastard", or "evil 1%", or "evil .01%". However embarrassing this may be for these firms and their clients, at the bottom of it is 1a) a bunch of legal laws passed by elected (maybe legally, maybe not) representatives (maybe representative, maybe not so much), getting election support from powerful constituents or anyone else who wants to buy a little influence, or pay some dues under the counter.
It is no secret that are large numbers of respectable law firms around the world that help the wealthy to legally set up barriers to legally reduce your taxes ... anybody with $$$ can take advantage of it and you can be sure 99% of them, including politicians and media titans, all of whom help decide what we hear and read, do so because it's legal and makes sense. Maybe not just with Mossack Fonseca. You can bet that politicians of all stripes (even Bernie, tho I'd be surprised if he has more than a Living Trust, or maybe an A/B trust) and ALL governments know who these specialized law firms are, and who their many of their clients are, and could prosecute them at any time if they wanted to, but that would be a waste of expensive government funds since the vast majority of these firms carefully operate within the letter of the law....and likely help support those very governments. After all, some of the best legal minds put these structures together ... when you have money, keeping it safe is a priority, just as is trying to repressing the will of those who would take or tax your money away (which can be done both legally and illegally). Getting money, and keeping it safe....peas in a pod. The legal high end product like a Solomon's Island Trust can be very expensive ... but like all other products, you get what you pay for.
2. So I'm prone to think that except in a few cases, prosecuting these firms would lead to no convictions. Maybe a few resignations or votes-out-of-office of embarrassed people from their jobs for things that were actually illegal, or maybe just for some exceptionally embarrassing things they did, but few if any convictions. Let the politicians change the laws if they want, but you know they will simply replace one set of asset protections with another (one that will take the public another 50 years to catch up with).
3. So what this boils down to for me is that this is mostly about some groups of people upset that other groups have some stuff (even legally-acquired stuff, that is legally-protected) than others do ... and don't care for those other groups, either. If the lawyers and politicians and media giants aren't helping to really change things, then in some countries we're still allowed to make life as difficult as legally possible for them ... like embarrassing them with (legal?) leaks from the computer of the Solomon Islands tribal chief who happens to be somebody's executor and trustee. "Right" or "wrong", it's still mostly legal to embarrass people in this country unless you also punch them in the face: Hulk Hogan's $140MM lottery ticket is likely to turn to ash on appeal. But there appears to be plenty of "I don't like you guys and want what you haves" floating around this leak and the subsequent discussion about it ... but "i want what you have" is very different from "what you are doing is illegal and immoral". Its just another form of ideological marketing and posturing....it reminds me of more than one particular current presidential candidate. Or perhaps change will come in the form of these "gray" laws, where, depending on the politicians in charge at the time, it can be interpreted in a variety of ways, intentionally so. Think, housing crisis.
----------------
----------------
Hmmmmm: is it worth separating "run of the mill" tax loopholes, such as a Living Trust which can help many homeowners save a lot of money, but it's still a legally approved loophole that instead, with the political will, could help poor people eat, from the more extreme (but still legal until they aren't) trusts and privacy structures set up in postage-stamp-sized principalities irrevocably managed by a council run by some headhunting chief sworn to secrecy? Is there a borderline out there somewhere that makes some loopholes good or OK, and some only for the evil-doers? Does the law have a lot of catching up to do here? Are these issues too thorny to solved by wealthy politicians? Maybe its too much to expect to pay an elected official to do something that takes money out of his pocket? Duh....
In all likelihood the legal basis of every single one of these evil .1-of-1% -rich guy-screwing-you-tax-loopholes was voted on and approved by somewhere between half and all of our elected representatives. Sure, sometimes politicians make it hard on purpose to blame them for doing this stuff ... for example, there's always another unrelated, attention-grabbing proposed law mysteriously appearing on the same bill that makes it Class 1 Felony to kick your grandmother ... who's going to vote against THAT?
Well known political leaders, the vast majority of whom are very well off, go on TV The last few days saying how insidious corporations and "the rich" are for reducing their taxes (or for blaming the recent negative publicity on lies spread by enemies), but just try and find out how they and their friends (and families!) have protected their wealth and/or enriched themselves during a period of political control. Don't expect much help from our overhyped "free press": the media won't sort this our for us, because they'll be blackballed at some politician's next press conference (and long thereafter) if they do... and forget about any "news tips" coming your way ... this has already been happening in the current election cycle ... because one way or another, Mr. Reporter, news tips and front-row seats at my press conference aren't free!
Its not just tax loopholes, there are all sorts of other legal loopholes for special interest people approved by our elected officials that screw everybody else, even the poor ... you just pump enough $$ into the right MC's campaigns and hope they don't switch sides for a few years. Of course elected officials, regardless of political affiliation or branch of economics they profess to believe in, do not go around broadcasting how they shelter THEIR MONEY and that of their extended family and friends, or we'd vote them out of office (if that's even possible) ... then we have outright government grants to companies run by politically connected friends and families, or the granting of valuable contracts, or special laws set up just for the families of important political leaders. All of this happens regularly in the U.S. ... God knows how much more so in other parts of the world, tho I would guess the percentage of GNPs skimmed off the top in some other counties is astronomically higher.
As difficult as it is to measure wealth (however acquired), and especially family wealth, it should come as no surprise that only 1 US family appears on most lists of the top 10 worldwide wealthy families. They're mostly in Europe and Asia and other parts of the Americas, from areas where wealth protection has as much as a 2000 year head start, and a distinguished history. Or, Google "trillionaires", and read about extended networks of uber-wealthy who manage to stay off the lists. Think about it, those people have a real protection issue, and I am grateful to not wake up every day thinking about that.
disclosure: I am not a 1%er, or 10%er....I don't even know if I have a percentage at all...tho I may have been in the top 50% for the better years of my working life. I've never had a trust or needed one. For the time being, I still think that countries that offer me a voteable choice between two separate mafia/warlord groups is more likely to offer a chance for a better life and more opportunities, and to feel safer, and do the things I like that don't hurt other people, than a country that has only one mafia/warlord group. And for that matter, the Panama Papers show that even international theocrats and oligarchs prefer the multiMafia world when they have real important stuff to do. But the way things are going, I think our dual-warlord society is quickly going the way of the single-warlord country. Then what!?!?
Fortunately, it's all like a big award winning movie, including one's thoughts about it, the screen, and projector ... even the photons and the theater where it appears to be showing. Be Content! Laugh! :thumb_up:
