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

Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

doi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 98 posts

Re: Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

#51

Post by froh »

fit2rule wrote: post #50
idclip wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means corruption is a basic human behavior. Its a self generating phenomena, and is „natural“. So there is no „illuminati“ to go after to solve this. Studies try and see how problems can be solved - if there was a single organizing entity like a mafia boss, it would be simpler to tackle the issue but there isn't, so its Marder than first expected. As to tax evasion, id posit the question „so why are these people e…

They're evading because taxation is based on income. If it were based on expenditure, there'd be no avoiding.

I don't understand. Mind to elaborate? Eli5?

Re: Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

#52

Post by plutonorm »

wombatmobile wrote: post #7

> In recent history, the Panama Papers have comprised one of the largest and most influential leaks detailing information on offshore entities, company officers and financial (and legal) intermediaries, and has led to a global exposé of corruption and tax evasion. A systematic analysis of this information can provide valuable insights into the structure and properties of these entities and the relations between them.…

There are no lizard people. No New world order and no Illuminati. Disappointing because that makes it all much harder to solve and makes it that much harder to view humanity in a favourable light.

Re: Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

#53

Post by nobody9999 »

froh wrote: post #51
fit2rule wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're evading because taxation is based on income. If it were based on expenditure, there'd be no avoiding.

I don't understand. Mind to elaborate? Eli5?

>I don't understand. Mind to elaborate? Eli5?

Not OP, but I assume he/she means something like a consumption tax[0].

However, given that poorer people tend to spend more of their income than wealthier ones, unless such a tax is appropriately calibrated, it can be quite regressive.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax

Re: Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

#54

Post by K0balt »

It should be mentioned that there are lots of non tax avoidance reasons to go offshore. The biggest ones are asset protection and incontestable estate succession.

IMHO, if your net worth is over about 250k (or lower if you have a high risk profile) your assets should probably be held in an offshore LLC, trust, or foundation. This makes them effectively untouchable by lawsuit, divorce proceedings, seizure, etc.

If you are concerned that your will provisions will be contested or that a lawsuit between siblings is likely when you die, offshore estate management also makes those things impossible.

Since in only costs 1-3 thousand US to set up effective offshore asset management, and maintaining it is 200-1200 a year, it's a small price to pay for peace of mind.

Re: Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

#55

Post by stareatgoats »

Erwin wrote: post #41
milchek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can they be otherwise somehow incentivized to invest in their Communities rather than evade? And how big is the contribution here? Is it worth pursuing I like this question. It makes me wonder what society would look like if we had micro community councils that operated this way, where residents “donated” parts of their wealth and those donations gave them some sort of stake, naming right, or voting power in commun…

That society already exists in e.g. Nordic countries. If we look at Sweden, Finland etc, total tax revenues as percentage of GDP are 48-54%. In USA, they are 24.3%. So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation in exchange for freely available health care, higher education etc. Family funds exist here (e.g. Novo Nordisk is 25% owned by a humanitarian fund, Mærsk) but are less important t…

> So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation

The higher taxation not come about because "people were fine with it". It was the consequence of a political and social momentum caused by the cold-war era where workers were able to extract concessions from the haves under the threat of a socialist revolution if they did not agree, in turn the result of historical proximity to the revolutionary movements in Europe in the 19th century as well as the geographical proximity to a powerful socialist state for the most part of the 20th century. This momentum is now slowly being eroded by the whole political spectrum on the right, paradoxically including what is left of the Scandinavian social democracies.

The welfare state will likely be a historical parenthesis between the laissez faire economy of the mid 18 hundreds and the new economy where the billionaires once again dictate the whole playing field. Unless a new situation arises where the haves once again willingly will agree to contribute towards funding a welfare state for some reason. I don't see it happening anytime soon however.

Re: Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

#56

Post by 0df8dkdf »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #37
troughway wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when you try to explain to HN that things are rigged and that "competitors" at higher levels know each other personally because even their kids attend the same schools gets you flagged, downvoted and warned, there is really no point in doing so anymore. Not important at this point. Let the idiots graze the pasture.

I'm confident HN could handle an explanation of that that's evidence-based, or at least presents a self-consistent model, and doesn't just peddle conspiracy theories. If you have one, please share (or link to a previous discussion). I'm somewhat open to this view, given that it seems like a reasonable explanation that a good chunk of the influential people have gone through the same few schools, socialize in the same…

That is more nepotism, and it is not necessary bad. People work better with people they know and trust.

Nepotism can lead to nefarious amongst a group with people who has a lot of power and money. That is probably what happened in US with Bushes, Clintons and Obamas.

At this point, even mainstream pretty much admitted that use is an oligarchy: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Re: Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

#57

Post by fit2rule »

nobody9999 wrote: post #53
froh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. Mind to elaborate? Eli5?

>I don't understand. Mind to elaborate? Eli5? Not OP, but I assume he/she means something like a consumption tax[0]. However, given that poorer people tend to spend more of their income than wealthier ones, unless such a tax is appropriately calibrated, it can be quite regressive. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax

In a nutshell: Poor people stay poor because they can't save. That is why income tax is repressive - it guarantees economic stagnation, since nobody wants to work for the man.

Spending tax means that, no matter who you are, you will pay your taxes if you want to purchase something, whether its a commodity or product or service.

The rich will still be able to be rich - in fact, there will be more rich people - but they won't be encouraged to spend any of it without sharing it in the form of taxes.

Re: Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

#58

Post by germinalphrase »

hdjdbtbgwjsn wrote: post #47
T-A wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just a higher level of taxation (i.e. mandatory), not the donations (i.e. voluntary) in exchange for naming rights or direct influence which parent is talking about.

In practice people that object to the taxes just move away.

They have the resources to do so, but How many low tax, high status countries are there to live in? How many people are free from all community, familial relationships that moving abroad had no social costs?

Re: Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

#59

Post by vmception »

csb6 wrote: post #29
vmception wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The movie was simplistic bullshit where every situation was nefarious broken people instead of the everyman that uses and would use these entity structures

Sure, non-wealthy people own stocks. But right now, the richest 10% of American households own 84% of the value of all stocks owned by Americans [1]. It is clear that the wealthy benefit massively from these structures and have much more use and access to them than the "everyman", who in the U.S. probably lives paycheck-to-paycheck. The fantasy that the "everyman" is this cowboy investor and broker is ridiculous and…

But they absolutely will drive to the next county to get cheaper gas or lower property taxes and it is the same concept.

Eventually you get to level up to the place of tax deferral that is infinite. You can do it onshore you can do if offshore. It is only hubris for some people to think some governments of their own choosing should have a piece of that. We are talking about the distinctly non corrupt activities.

Re: Structural studies of the global networks exposed in the Panama papers

#60

Post by stevenjohns »

Erwin wrote: post #41
milchek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can they be otherwise somehow incentivized to invest in their Communities rather than evade? And how big is the contribution here? Is it worth pursuing I like this question. It makes me wonder what society would look like if we had micro community councils that operated this way, where residents “donated” parts of their wealth and those donations gave them some sort of stake, naming right, or voting power in commun…

That society already exists in e.g. Nordic countries. If we look at Sweden, Finland etc, total tax revenues as percentage of GDP are 48-54%. In USA, they are 24.3%. So here's a smaller community where the majority is fine with high taxation in exchange for freely available health care, higher education etc. Family funds exist here (e.g. Novo Nordisk is 25% owned by a humanitarian fund, Mærsk) but are less important t…

You're missing out on the significant unemployment in countries like Sweden. There is significantly better free healthcare in Australia - which has an average tax rate of 23.6%.

The correlation of high taxes = better quality of life doesn't hold much strength when you consider that there are plenty of countries doing well without it, and plenty of countries with high taxes that have a poor quality of life.

Post reply on HN