The Panama Papers - "The biggest leak in the history of data journalism"

[The Meach]

3.2 trillion in tax revenue in 2015.

Clinton's budgets were around 2 trillion, Bush's 2.5. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to pay for all you mention and still run a surplus other than Democrat social engineering.

So did they get rid of all of those social programs? Sweet! So my taxes will be dropping too then eh?

 

[JTScribe]

So did they get rid of all of those social programs? Sweet! So my taxes will be dropping too then eh?

There were no social programs when Bush and Clinton were in office? The increases we're seeing now are basically the continual rollover of the stimulus year over year since we went six years without an official budget.

 

[HoughMade]

The top 1% of earners pay over 45% of taxes.

The top 20% pay 84% of taxes.

The bottom 80% pay under 15%.

The bottom 60% pay less than 2%.

Now, back to the "Panama Papers". There is a pervasive view that if one uses tax structuring, it must be illegal and immoral. Whether any of these arrangements are illegal or not remains to be seen. Immoral? I don't even know where that comes from.

if you believe that government owns all the money, all we earn, and is so kind to let us keep portion, by all means, call tax deductions and tax abatement "welfare" and attempts to shelter income immoral.

Personally, I don't think the government owns all the money I earn, so doing whatever is legal to pay less taxes makes sense to me...that goes for the 1% as well. The top 20% are still paying for everything.

 

[Streck-Fu]

So they're not doing anything wrong but feel the need to hide what they're doing under multiple layers of shell corporations. Got it

With governments doing everything possible to squeeze every penny from citizens, I am ok with anyone that can, hide their earned money.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Well having the world's largest military costs money. Having a complex countrywide interstate road system costs money. Having a system of courts to adjudicate grievances costs money. Prisons cost money.. ect.

We could have all that with a much simpler tax system. Like any other bureaucratic authority, our government has come to only exist to support itself and expand powers. We can cut the federal government by 80% and still maintain the infrastructure and services you cite.

I'm not advocating the extreme mindset of a 90% top tax rate or any BS like that. I'm saying its the folks on this list that control the cast majority of the world's public resources. And if they aren't willing to contribute to it at the minimum level that they demand of us lowly serfs then maybe they shouldn't be running the show.

Sound like you could support the flat tax. 10 or 15% for everyone including corporations. Eliminate all deductions. Reduce the IRS to and administrative filing agency with 1/10 the employees and no lawyers nor enforcement authority (transfer enforcement to FBI).

 

[Woobie]

I'm not an expert on tax law, much less international tax law. It remains to be seen whether laws were broken. Certainly the secrecy leaves one suspicious.

I find it very interesting no Americans were named.

At least Fearless Leader has the situation well in hand, and has issued an insightful statement full of reasonable policy changes.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

We could have all that with a much simpler tax system. Like any other bureaucratic authority, our government has come to only exist to support itself and expand powers. We can cut the federal government by 80% and still maintain the infrastructure and services you cite.



Sound like you could support the flat tax. 10 or 15% for everyone including corporations. Eliminate all deductions. Reduce the IRS to and administrative filing agency with 1/10 the employees and no lawyers nor enforcement authority (transfer enforcement to FBI).

Quoted for truth. This is exactly what we need to work toward.

 

[Cameramonkey]

We could have all that with a much simpler tax system. Like any other bureaucratic authority, our government has come to only exist to support itself and expand powers. We can cut the federal government by 80% and still maintain the infrastructure and services you cite.



Sound like you could support the flat tax. 10 or 15% for everyone including corporations. Eliminate all deductions. Reduce the IRS to and administrative filing agency with 1/10 the employees and no lawyers nor enforcement authority (transfer enforcement to FBI).

Too bad companies dont pay taxes. A tax is just another expense that gets passed on to consumers and employees in the form of higher prices and lower wages, respectively.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Too bad companies dont pay taxes. A tax is just another expense that gets passed on to consumers and employees in the form of higher prices and lower wages, respectively.

Most do pay taxes.

They just include it in the cost of business. Every business does that, not just huge corporations. Whether a self employed plumber or the owner of business that employees 1000 people, all costs of operating are built into the prices of products and services.
The current corporate tax rate in the US is 39%. Imagine how much less products could cost or more employees could be hired if that was cut to 10%.

The assertion that employees wages are less because of taxes are only true in the respect of the mandated SS and medicare taxes. You can blame the government for that.
Or do you prefer to receive a higher wage and pay the full share of SS and medicare taxes?

 

[The Meach]

The top 1% of earners pay over 45% of taxes.

The top 20% pay 84% of taxes.

The bottom 80% pay under 15%.

The bottom 60% pay less than 2%.

Now, back to the "Panama Papers". There is a pervasive view that if one uses tax structuring, it must be illegal and immoral. Whether any of these arrangements are illegal or not remains to be seen. Immoral? I don't even know where that comes from.

if you believe that government owns all the money, all we earn, and is so kind to let us keep portion, by all means, call tax deductions and tax abatement "welfare" and attempts to shelter income immoral.

Personally, I don't think the government owns all the money I earn, so doing whatever is legal to pay less taxes makes sense to me...that goes for the 1% as well. The top 20% are still paying for everything.

I feel like I'm not making myself clear. I am Not calling for a reckoning. I'm passing a personal social judgment. I'm calling to account their honor and better human nature (or lack thereof)



For example: The owners of Wal-mart the Walton family have never committed any serious business crimes (that I'm aware of). At least on the scale of jail time or losing their business.

However many people (myself included) judge them as bad people. Because of how they treat and pay their workers. Even to the point that many of their stores had public food donation boxes to subsidize their own employees holiday food stufts.

Now I don't think the Waltons are under any obligation to pay their employees more. But I belive that any employer that has personal wealth reserves in the billions and maintains a workforce that has to resort to begging to feed their families is most definitely not reaching the gold standard of human morality.



Now I feel this extends to the people involved in the Panama Papers release (especially the leaders in government.) These are people that are perfectly fine with government working on their behalf through lobbing and advantageous legislation. People that would demand that public servants like police and firemen save them in their time of need. People that happily allow others to die defending their freedom so that they may maintain their lifestyles. But will go to extraordinary lengths to prevent a single cent go to pay for it all that doesn't have to be forced out of them. AS IS THEIR RIGHT. But the public also has the right to judge them and insult them for being little sniveling scroodges jealously counting their gold at the top of their ivory tower. And the public definitely have the right to make sure that people of that sort of character don't get elected or maintain public office.

 

[Texican]

We could have all that with a much simpler tax system. Like any other bureaucratic authority, our government has come to only exist to support itself and expand powers. We can cut the federal government by 80% and still maintain the infrastructure and services you cite.



Sound like you could support the flat tax. 10 or 15% for everyone including corporations. Eliminate all deductions. Reduce the IRS to and administrative filing agency with 1/10 the employees and no lawyers nor enforcement authority (transfer enforcement to FBI).

This is exactly what I am hoping for, for the future of this country. Except now, you have to increase the size of the FBI to cover that the manpower that the 1:116 chance of getting audited.

But then again, I've been waiting for the Fed to be audited for a long time... and probably will for a while longer.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Relatives of Chinese top leaders are identified as owning offshore companies in Panama Papers

 

[Cameramonkey]

Most do pay taxes.

They just include it in the cost of business. Every business does that, not just huge corporations. Whether a self employed plumber or the owner of business that employees 1000 people, all costs of operating are built into the prices of products and services.
The current corporate tax rate in the US is 39%. Imagine how much less products could cost or more employees could be hired if that was cut to 10%.

The assertion that employees wages are less because of taxes are only true in the respect of the mandated SS and medicare taxes. You can blame the government for that.
Or do you prefer to receive a higher wage and pay the full share of SS and medicare taxes?

Probably semantics, but its important. No matter how you slice it, THEY do not. They simply pass the charge along to individuals who do.

Here is raw example: (not identical, but illustrates the point while keeping it simple)

You contract with me to fix your PC. I found you need a new hard drive. So I go to Walmart and buy one for you. $100 for the drive, with 7% sales tax.

I install the drive and get you back up and running. Your bill is $277. $150 in labor and $127 for the drive including my 20% markup to cover the time it took to go buy it for you. I walk away with $170 in earnings. Who paid the $7 tax? (hint, it wasnt me! I only collected it and passed it on to uncle sam)

Saying businesses pay taxes is like claiming *I* paid the tax in the example above. And its VERY important to be honest in who actually pays the taxes in our discussions in order to move the conversation forward and to educate. Many of those out there that dont understand the concept will continue to push for higher business taxes because they want to "stick it to the man" not realizing that its not much different than paying the tax directly themselves.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Probably semantics, but its important. No matter how you slice it, THEY do not.

That is an amazingly obtuse way of looking at it.

Using such an example means that no business pays rent for or buy a building or office space, they do not pay their employees' salaries, nor to they pay for employee benefits, nor any of the materials and machines to produce a product or service. Businesses buy nor pay for anything... their customers do.

Is that really your opinion?

The cost of doing business must be reclaimed though product or services sold or rendered.

But still, no matter what, if corporate taxes were much less, prices could be much less.

Which you finally did get to:

Many of those out there that dont understand the concept will continue to push for higher business taxes because they want to "stick it to the man" not realizing that its not much different than paying the tax directly themselves.

 

[Cameramonkey]

The bottom line is increasing costs on a business doesnt mean THEY will pay for it. They do not operate in a vacuum. And no, eliminating corporate taxes will not automatically cause prices to drop. Those will be reclaimed in profits unless competition drives the prices down because they can now afford to sell it for less and will do so to sell more than their competitor who absorbed the windfall and maintained status quo.

Just pointing out that in the simplest terms that the entity writing the check to .gov isnt always the one actually footing the bill.

Taxes are just another cost of doing business. Just like if the cost of raw materials increases, that increase gets passed on in the final product.

 

[Streck-Fu]

The way you wrote it initially, your post read as though it was unethical for the company to pass the cost of taxes to the consumer.

 

[Cameramonkey]

The way you wrote it initially, your post read as though it was unethical for the company to pass the cost of taxes to the consumer.

Heavens no! Its just another line item... Raw materials, Water, Power, natural gas, office supplies, business taxex, etc.

My beef is with those foolish enough to think that the business owners are going to pay that tax as the final entity and no consumers or employees would be harmed by the increase in taxes. (Kraft Foods paid that tax, not the folks that are buying their cheese)

 

[Streck-Fu]

Then I misunderstood and apologize for being the obtuse one.

 

[HoughMade]

Then I misunderstood and apologize for being the obtuse one.

Awww, i think you're acute.

 

[bobzilla]

Awww, i think you're acute.

Is that a math joke? Because I like those. And pizza