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

391–400 of 459 posts

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#391

Post by Spooky23 »

T2_t2 wrote: post #337
noobermin wrote: post #79

Since there are no top level comments putting this out for probably obvious reasons, here is a supportive comment for the article. This is what people feel in their guts when they drive out on tattered roads and avoid going to the hospital even though they are sick, when they don't have a real increase in wages but are working longer hours. They have the sense that something isn't right, that there are two sets of ru…

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…

Your expectations aren’t reality. If you have a solid middle class job like a policeman, corporate manager, or soldier, you will be fine in Mississippi or South Carolina. The major difference is that state protections will be weaker than in places like California or New York, and you may need to travel to a regional center to get specialized care in some situations.

If you are poor, however, forget about it. Those states are openly hostile to you and generally opt to find the minimum number or services allowed by law. They are so bad that many people establish false residency in states with better systems.

The way these programs are funded, it makes little difference to state balance sheets — it’s all about appealing to particular political bases, and keeping certain taxes (typically property taxes) low to keep the old money people happy.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#392

Post by chii »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #333
grondilu wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary.

>Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary. You are one of the people for whom they build gulags.

More correctly, he builds the gulag for the rich.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#393

Post by chii »

rco8786 wrote: post #132
grondilu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my humble opinion, the job of the government is absolutely not to give money to the poorest people, not even to maintain a "basic level of livelyhood". I'm also fairly certain this has nothing to do with the concept of justice.

What's so bad about needing help? And what's so bad about society helping it's neediest maintain a basic level of existence?

Overwhelmingly large number of people in society are selfish. They say that social welfare is good, but when time comes to increase taxes to fund it, either they oppose, or build in clever loopholes to work around it (the rich do anyway). What's left is the middle to lower class getting the burden, and that causes them to also reject tax increases.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#394

Post by mindcrime »

Clubber wrote: post #179
mindcrime wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than repeat what's already been said many times before, I'll just refer you here: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/is-taxation-theft

No one likes paying taxes but calling it theft is intellectually dishonest and hyperbolic that attempts to paint taxation as immoral for people who like to think emotionally rather than rationally. I mean you happily use the services that taxes provide. Police, the legal system, roads, schools, libraries, anything created using the legal system, roads, schools or libraries, fuel exploration subsidies, research, etc.…

No one likes paying taxes but calling it theft is intellectually dishonest

No, calling it anything but theft is "intellectually dishonest".

I mean you happily use the services that taxes provide. Police, the legal system, roads, schools, libraries, anything created using the legal system, roads, schools or libraries, fuel exploration subsidies, research, etc.

No, I don't happily use any of those things. I grudgingly use (some of) them because A. the State usually doesn't allow any other choices, and B. my stolen money was used to pay for them, so I might as well derive some benefit from it. But since the initial "transaction" was not voluntary, it's clearly theft.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#395

Post by vasilipupkin »

vonnik wrote: post #386
vasilipupkin wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But he borrowed 160 mln against the building" This is where your argument collapses. The building dramatically increased in value - that's why he was able to borrow so much against it. That's the real estate game - and it's legit.

Here's the evidence, Vasili: Trump buys an office building in downtown Manhattan in 1995 - the year he allegedly lost $1 billion. All cash. He then borrows $145 million from a union pension fund to carry out a $35 million renovation. The previous owners, a Hong Kong company that may have been a front for Ferdinand Marcos, bought the building for $8 million two years before Trump and also renovated it. The building si…

I get it, you don't like Trump. I don't like him either. But the above doesn't seem like evidence of anything other than real estate dealings.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#396

Post by enraged_camel »

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.

>>That is the choice of giving up my money, or dying - during a robbery.

Why do you believe living in the jungle will result in dying? Our ancestors did it, and many people manage to do it today.

It wouldn't be easy of course, especially if you're so used to your creature comforts that you lack basic survival skills, but it's definitely not a death sentence.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#397

Post by SubiculumCode »

andrenth wrote: post #365
SubiculumCode wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah then you must also believe that the government should not be giving money to corporations, and special breaks to the rich; breaks that make it so the poor have a harder time escaping poverty?? They do, because the laws are bought by the rich.

The way to fix this is by design: to have a government small enough that buying it wouldn’t bring you advantages comparable to succeeding in the free market. Most people disagree with that and seem to think it’s possible to have angels from heaven running the government machine. The thing is that even if you manage that, it’s bound to go wrong at some future election.

The problem will always be that the profit motive is an engine that chews up the weak and the helpless, and as a moral society we want to limit these kind of behaviors, both by local gangs, and by massive corporations. Government is one way to do this. I agree that government should be more limited in some way. I think that the solution will be to empower local government, and the yoke the power of the federal fiat currency to local authority.

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#398

Post by njarboe »

mtremsal wrote: post #298
will_pseudonym wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but new medications for difficult to treat diseases do raise the quality of life for those populations, despite being incredibly expensive. I'm certainly not saying they shouldn't be less expensive, mind you. :)

I agree with your point, but are you also implying that 'new medications for difficult to treat diseases' are a primary driver of 'ballooning healthcare costs'? I don't think healthcare costs are increasing as quickly in other developed countries while they do benefit from constant medical advances.

Which "developed" (hopefully we can develop some more) country is creating these medical advances? One might guess the US, but I don't really know. Any good studies I could read?

Re: Paradise Papers: New leak from offshore finance firm

#399

Post by lovich »

mindcrime wrote: post #165
lovich wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does being hackers have to do with it? Every tech company and startup is already relying on the threat of violence to get what they want. They all use IP law which is enforced by the government and that enforcement leads back to violence.

What does being hackers have to do with it? Seriously? It's mind-boggling to me that somebody would ask that with a straight face, ya know? I mean, the essence of what it means to be a hacker is to examine things, break them apart, understand how they work, and improve them. And as a general rule, most hackers have traditionally preferred to use their minds to achieve various ends, rather than relying on violence. Pu…

You can do all of that, but when it comes down to two parties disagreeing it all eventually comes back to violence. Eventually one party resorts to attempting to force their will on the world without the consent of another party. Even if _you_ wont, all it takes is a single party to be willing to do so and suddenly the guy in charge is the one whose ok with violence.

My example was showing how even amongst a group of people who would have defined themselves as hackers, all the winners have resorted to relying on violence in one form or another. You can sit and be principled all you want, and then maybe you'll be a footnote in a history book

Post reply on HN