Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

icij.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 459 posts

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#371

Post by undersuit »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #250
tomjakubowski wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just “an office building”, it’s a 71 story skyscraper. Even setting aside its highly desirable location a $1M price makes no sense. The thing is, though, that the only source I can find for the $1M purchase price is Trump’s own mouth, while bragging about its real value (hundreds of millions), and we know he lies and exaggerates all the time.

Ok, so either way my point stands. There is no evidence whatsoever that something illegal is taking place ? The op posted this article http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/business/40-wall-street-is... So apparently he bought it roughly for market price ?

>There is no evidence whatsoever that something illegal is taking place ?

Why would you want evidence that something illegal was taking place if something illegal was taking place? Sure in the absence of evidence I do believe we cannot declare anyone guilty, but the presumption of innocence doesn't mean we can't cast suspicion.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#372

Post by grondilu »

dsnuh wrote: post #342
grondilu wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't we all have the right to a basic level of livelihood? You have the right to it, but you're not entitled to it. To me, having the right to do something means you can't be prosecuted for doing it. It doesn't mean that society must help you.

Wait, wha??? You have the right to it, but you are not entitled to it? I don't know if you are American, but let's assume you are. The Declaration Of Independence enshrines three "unalienable rights" that governments are "created to protect". Let's take them one at a time. 1. Life - so one has the right to life, yet is not entitled to it? If I take your life and don't get prosecuted for it, then everything is cool? 2…

If Law itself can't prevent you to exercise your rights, it usually also means it should prevent other people from preventing you to exercise your rights. Thus murder (someone preventing you from exercising your right to live) is a crime and so is slavery (someone preventing you to exercise your freedom).

Your third example is interesting because indeed, I personally believe that education should be a service like any other, one that society is not supposed to provide, at least not by law. On the other hand, law should not prevent your from getting one, nor should it allow anyone to prevent someone from having one. Hopefully you can see the difference.

It's like say owning a car. You have the right to own one. If someone steals it, it's a crime and society must punish it. But society does not have to provide you one if you don't have any.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#373

Post by VHRanger »

jellicle wrote: post #197
VHRanger wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to note that, in the US, worker __compensation__ has increased steadily. However, __wages__ have not. A lot of this has to do with employer provided health insurance and ballooning healthcare costs, which are fairly specific problems to the US. Housing and education costs have also increased much faster than overall worker compensation.

A lot of that is largely fictitious. If an employer health insurer doubles their prices, supposedly my compensation has increased a lot, but in fact, I'm poorer, because my share of the health insurance premium has increased and my coverage has not. The only one getting richer is the insurer. Are we going to argue then that worker compensation in all the many countries with universal government-paid health insurance…

I don't disagree. The worker is worse off on average with this trend.

The point is in where to focus the solution. Yes unionizing (or other wage negotiation methods) will help in some areas, but the best economic bang for your buck is fixing incentives in health insurance.

Counterintuitively, slashing the tax cut on employer provided health insurance would be a step forward (especially if combined with other tax measures).

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#374

Post by VHRanger »

mtremsal wrote: post #129
VHRanger wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to note that, in the US, worker __compensation__ has increased steadily. However, __wages__ have not. A lot of this has to do with employer provided health insurance and ballooning healthcare costs, which are fairly specific problems to the US. Housing and education costs have also increased much faster than overall worker compensation.

Couldn't you argue that an increase in compensation driven by 'ballooning healthcare costs' wouldn't actually improve the standard of living of workers? Comparing wages (rather than total compensation) to cost of living would seem more pertinent in this regard.

I didn't say people are better off.

We need awareness on where the problem stems from if we want to advocate for effective solution (instead of appealing solutions that won't do much).

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#375

Post by dsnuh »

grondilu wrote: post #372
dsnuh wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, wha??? You have the right to it, but you are not entitled to it? I don't know if you are American, but let's assume you are. The Declaration Of Independence enshrines three "unalienable rights" that governments are "created to protect". Let's take them one at a time. 1. Life - so one has the right to life, yet is not entitled to it? If I take your life and don't get prosecuted for it, then everything is cool? 2…

If Law itself can't prevent you to exercise your rights, it usually also means it should prevent other people from preventing you to exercise your rights. Thus murder (someone preventing you from exercising your right to live) is a crime and so is slavery (someone preventing you to exercise your freedom). Your third example is interesting because indeed, I personally believe that education should be a service like an…

>If Law itself can't prevent you to exercise your rights, it usually also means it should prevent other people from preventing you to exercise your rights. Thus murder (someone preventing you from exercising your right to live) is a crime and so is slavery (someone preventing you to exercise your freedom).

You are part of a lynch mob in the 30's. Your crime of murder is swept under the rug.

You live in Alabama in 1836. A man frees your slave, and you had to shoot him as he runs away. You are now out one slave (no murder, right?) and the man who freed him is in prison.

Laws change. Rights are inalienable.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#376

Post by wfo »

nickpp wrote: post #345
aylmao wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do. You can choose to not live in society. Go live in the jungle, or buy a raft and jump onto the sea; no one will follow you to tax you. Of course, you won't do this, cause you like living with people. You like living in cities but cities cannot run without roads, piers, planning, etc. And you like being safe, knowing if people hurt you or take your stuff they'll be punished, if your house catches on fire it'll…

That is the choice of giving up my money, or dying - during a robbery. I am talking about the choice I have in any free marked: where to spend my money and what to get in exchange. I have none of that when it comes to over half of my revenue: my taxes.

You have a huge amount of choice in your taxes; you can vote, run for office, and advocate for political positions. You have zero choice in your economic situation (if you are 99% of people) since most financial choices are made for you by large companies that you have zero stake in or control over.

Is there a difference between someone pointing a gun at your head and saying 'your money or your life' and a company that buys all the water in your region and withholds it saying 'your money or your life'? No.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#377

Post by T2_t2 »

jdietrich wrote: post #355
T2_t2 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming SG is Singapore, that is a really specific example, because it is a tiny Island of 4 million people with a lot of very unique attributes - it is a major shipping and airport hub, as well as a financial hub in a notoriously corrupt region. The USA has similar areas - often much larger, usually with very similar outcomes. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per... and compare it to…

>Even when there is variance, UK with London, north and south of Spain and Italy, it is not quite so dramatic. I'd argue otherwise. Greater London had a GVA per capita of £42,666 in 2013. Several counties had a GVA per capita of less than £19,000, with the least productive (Northumberland) having a GVA per capita of less than £15,000. Excluding Washington DC (which isn't technically a state), that's a significantly g…

You could be right - it may affect smaller countries like the Uk as well. Probably Spain also. heck, even Italy has Lombardy separatist movement.

Maybe it is just an issue when a country has more than one city, and solid growth? Singapore is one big city, but so is Hong Kong. Now HK is part of China, that has caused issues as well, whereas SG has no direct comparison.

The massive country issue may be one that hits all multi-city first world countries eventually, as there is no way rural regions can match the GDP PPP of large cities and this variance within nation states would lead to a lot of issues.

How utterly depressing to think about!

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#378

Post by isostatic »

nickpp wrote: post #297
isostatic wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes are the rent you pay to live in the society you live in.

Do I have a choice? If not, then I am robbed. I don’t disagree with the idea of taxes, just with the way they are stolen from me and with most of the purposes they are used for.

move to a country/region with no taxes.

If you want the benefits of a country that has decided to charge people to live there, then you have to pay - same if you want the benefits of membership of a club.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#379

Post by heurist »

BatFastard wrote: post #21
allenz wrote: post #16

The leak shows substantial Russian cash going to US commerce secretary Wilbur Ross; Twitter and Facebook; and Arsenal and Everton. It also shows the usual tax avoidance by powerful people including Lord Ashcroft and Trudeau financier Stephen Bronfman.

What will it take for people to say NO MORE

It's starting but to truly take that stand generally requires major life changes, and those changes take time to come into fruition if they happen at all. I'm trying to save enough money to escape the rat race and build technology and organizations that at least I think could help level the political playing field, but unexpected expenses come up and savings seem to move less than they should.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#380

Post by grondilu »

dsnuh wrote: post #375
grondilu wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Law itself can't prevent you to exercise your rights, it usually also means it should prevent other people from preventing you to exercise your rights. Thus murder (someone preventing you from exercising your right to live) is a crime and so is slavery (someone preventing you to exercise your freedom). Your third example is interesting because indeed, I personally believe that education should be a service like an…

>If Law itself can't prevent you to exercise your rights, it usually also means it should prevent other people from preventing you to exercise your rights. Thus murder (someone preventing you from exercising your right to live) is a crime and so is slavery (someone preventing you to exercise your freedom). You are part of a lynch mob in the 30's. Your crime of murder is swept under the rug. You live in Alabama in 183…

Well, I may have oversimplified when I wrote that rights were what you can't be prosecuted for. I'm no constitutionalist. But you can't just shrug on the idea that there is a difference between rights and entitlements. I suppose you can though, since it fits your political view. Still a quick search for "rights vs entitlements" returns ample documentation, including quotes from Law professors, like this one:

"America was founded on the idea that human beings are born with natural rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and property. A person who holds this view of rights makes no demands on others except that they respect those rights. Today, however, many Americans talk about rights to a college education, state of the art medical care and even birth control pills. These are rights understood as entitlements and a person who holds this view of rights, far from making no demands on other people, is making claims on other people’s money and resources. This understanding of rights not only sets citizens against each other, but it undermines the whole idea of natural rights."

http://blog.hillsdale.edu/online-courses/natural-rights-vs.-...

I like especially the "it undermines the whole idea of natural rights". Clearly people like me are the result of this undermining.

Post reply on HN