Hacker Publishes 2TB of Data from Cayman National Bank(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Hacker Publishes 2TB of Data from Cayman National Bank
https://twitter.com/DDoSecrets/status/1195899716653010945
473 comments
A recent piece in The Guardian argues that South Dakota and other US states are actually becoming the go-to place to store anonymously your illicit cash and make sure that your heirs can inherit it without taxes forever: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/the-great-amer...
Partly because the US has compelled other countries to provide more transparency without joining that transparency organization itself.
"Congress responded with the Financial Assets Tax Compliance Act (Fatca), forcing foreign financial institutions to tell the US government about any American-owned assets on their books. Department of Justice investigations were savage: UBS paid a $780m fine, and its rival Credit Suisse paid $2.6bn, while Wegelin, Switzerland’s oldest bank, collapsed altogether under the strain. The amount of US-owned money in the country plunged, with Credit Suisse losing 85% of its American customers.
The rest of the world, inspired by this example, created a global agreement called the Common Reporting Standard (CRS). Under CRS, countries agreed to exchange information on the assets of each other’s citizens kept in each other’s banks. The tax-evading appeal of places like Jersey, the Bahamas and Liechtenstein evaporated almost immediately, since you could no longer hide your wealth there.
How was a rich person to protect his wealth from the government in this scary new transparent world? Fortunately, there was a loophole. CRS had been created by lots of countries together, and they all committed to telling each other their financial secrets. But the US was not part of CRS, and its own system – Fatca – only gathers information from foreign countries; it does not send information back to them. This loophole was unintentional, but vast: keep your money in Switzerland, and the world knows about it; put it in the US and, if you were clever about it, no one need ever find out. The US was on its way to becoming a truly world-class tax haven."
Partly because the US has compelled other countries to provide more transparency without joining that transparency organization itself.
"Congress responded with the Financial Assets Tax Compliance Act (Fatca), forcing foreign financial institutions to tell the US government about any American-owned assets on their books. Department of Justice investigations were savage: UBS paid a $780m fine, and its rival Credit Suisse paid $2.6bn, while Wegelin, Switzerland’s oldest bank, collapsed altogether under the strain. The amount of US-owned money in the country plunged, with Credit Suisse losing 85% of its American customers.
The rest of the world, inspired by this example, created a global agreement called the Common Reporting Standard (CRS). Under CRS, countries agreed to exchange information on the assets of each other’s citizens kept in each other’s banks. The tax-evading appeal of places like Jersey, the Bahamas and Liechtenstein evaporated almost immediately, since you could no longer hide your wealth there.
How was a rich person to protect his wealth from the government in this scary new transparent world? Fortunately, there was a loophole. CRS had been created by lots of countries together, and they all committed to telling each other their financial secrets. But the US was not part of CRS, and its own system – Fatca – only gathers information from foreign countries; it does not send information back to them. This loophole was unintentional, but vast: keep your money in Switzerland, and the world knows about it; put it in the US and, if you were clever about it, no one need ever find out. The US was on its way to becoming a truly world-class tax haven."
> place to store anonymously your illicit cash
What if I just want a place to anonymously store my legally gained cash?
Unfortunately, it seems the normal people lost their privacy nowadays at the expense of the criminals and the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" argument has taken a stronghold in the financial sector.
What if I just want a place to anonymously store my legally gained cash?
Unfortunately, it seems the normal people lost their privacy nowadays at the expense of the criminals and the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" argument has taken a stronghold in the financial sector.
Because the social contract of most countries is that your legally gained cash is to be taxed in one form or another and thus has to be known by the tax authorities?
You can argue that your assets are to be private to the general public but some countries do not have that assumption (Norway comes to mind).
You can argue that your assets are to be private to the general public but some countries do not have that assumption (Norway comes to mind).
By "legally gained cash" I mean that taxes have already been paid for it.
Then, by definition it's not anonymous because the authorities know that you have it.
If you transfer it to someone else (legally) then there's going to be another taxable event, and the IRS will know you no longer have it.
If you're trying to store cash anonymously from the public, there are many countries where that's possible. If you're trying to store cash anonymously from the government, there's not really a legal avenue for that.
If you transfer it to someone else (legally) then there's going to be another taxable event, and the IRS will know you no longer have it.
If you're trying to store cash anonymously from the public, there are many countries where that's possible. If you're trying to store cash anonymously from the government, there's not really a legal avenue for that.
> If you're trying to store cash anonymously from the government, there's not really a legal avenue for that.
That is a succinct summary of the initial complaint.
We're moving from a world where a buyer and vendor agreeing means something will happen to a world where buyer, vendor, bank and government all have to agree before something will happen. This is not a world that will cope well with change.
There are big incentives for governments to get involved in every transaction (by definition, they don't agree with anything that they get involved with and block). But we get back to the classic problem that they are only bureaucratic humans and make a lot of mistakes. Also issues of regulatory capture.
Although I'll throw in I'm interested in how much of an impact enforcing tax law has on the small and big pictures. One of China's competitive advantages is they claim a low tax rate as % of GDP, and most of the tax evasion I've seen personally is small businesses recycling money into the local economy. Changes to such dynamics will have far-reaching consequences.
That is a succinct summary of the initial complaint.
We're moving from a world where a buyer and vendor agreeing means something will happen to a world where buyer, vendor, bank and government all have to agree before something will happen. This is not a world that will cope well with change.
There are big incentives for governments to get involved in every transaction (by definition, they don't agree with anything that they get involved with and block). But we get back to the classic problem that they are only bureaucratic humans and make a lot of mistakes. Also issues of regulatory capture.
Although I'll throw in I'm interested in how much of an impact enforcing tax law has on the small and big pictures. One of China's competitive advantages is they claim a low tax rate as % of GDP, and most of the tax evasion I've seen personally is small businesses recycling money into the local economy. Changes to such dynamics will have far-reaching consequences.
> We're moving from a world where a buyer and vendor agreeing means something will happen to a world where buyer, vendor, bank and government all have to agree before something will happen.
No, we were never in that world. The only truly bilateral agreement is a gentlemen's agreement.
Trust usually relies on certain facts being public, and visible to a whole lot of people besides the transacting parties. "Who owns what" is a pretty important set of facts to agree on publicly.
No, we were never in that world. The only truly bilateral agreement is a gentlemen's agreement.
Trust usually relies on certain facts being public, and visible to a whole lot of people besides the transacting parties. "Who owns what" is a pretty important set of facts to agree on publicly.
No, that does not necessitate transactions to be public, just provable (and, arguably, legal).
If I don't know even know what's your property, how should I respect it?
And even if there's some assertion that an unknown someone owns something, _why_ should we respect it? Shouldn't we as a society just take it, and ask the owner to show himself if he minds? That seems a very reasonable solution to problems like tax paradises and shell companies if you ask me.
And even if there's some assertion that an unknown someone owns something, _why_ should we respect it? Shouldn't we as a society just take it, and ask the owner to show himself if he minds? That seems a very reasonable solution to problems like tax paradises and shell companies if you ask me.
> That is a succinct summary of the initial complaint.
I would disagree in one key way. The initial complaint focused on this as a recent change. "it seems the normal people lost their privacy _nowadays_ at the expense..."
Certainly this is true from a technology perspective. No argument there.
But I don't think this is in any way novel from a _legal_ perspective.
Governments have, since at least roman times, taxed individuals based on the quantity of things they possessed or based on transactions. As long as it has been this way, the government has had a legal right to know your financial standing.
So, if the argument is that we're in novel _legal_ ground, I disagree. If the argument is that we're in a status quo legal ground, but in novel _technical_ and _enforcement_ ground, I'd agree.
I would disagree in one key way. The initial complaint focused on this as a recent change. "it seems the normal people lost their privacy _nowadays_ at the expense..."
Certainly this is true from a technology perspective. No argument there.
But I don't think this is in any way novel from a _legal_ perspective.
Governments have, since at least roman times, taxed individuals based on the quantity of things they possessed or based on transactions. As long as it has been this way, the government has had a legal right to know your financial standing.
So, if the argument is that we're in novel _legal_ ground, I disagree. If the argument is that we're in a status quo legal ground, but in novel _technical_ and _enforcement_ ground, I'd agree.
It's a trust but verify thing I believe. If the cash is anonymized, how can they know if the owner of this cash did in fact pay their taxes on it? Either they blindly trust everyone to properly declare all of their income, or they need to have some form of traceability.
So everyone is assumed to be a criminal until proven otherwise?
If you've gone to a movie they don't let everyone in and assume they had a ticket. Doesn't mean they think of you as a criminal.
I mostly have in mind the KYC strip-tease one must go through nowadays do open an account or purchase anything over $1000. There's no privacy these days.
That's the problem with making zero tolerance the ultimate goal of society.
Either we accept there will always be a few bad apples or everyone has to prove they aren't one of them.
Either we accept there will always be a few bad apples or everyone has to prove they aren't one of them.
Nit, but it's a pet peeve of mine:
The saying is "A few bad apples spoil the barrel", meaning "be vigilant about bad apples and get rid of them ASAP." I'm baffled and frustrated by the tendency to use "a few bad apples" as if the saying were "a few bad apples are no big deal, get rid of them if you happen to notice."
I actually don't think reasoning from vague analogy and folk wisdom is all that great an idea, but reasoning from the reverse is probably worse.
Feel plenty free to make the case that we should tolerate some level of misconduct - I might agree. But please don't refer to those involved as "a few bad apples" while you do it.
The saying is "A few bad apples spoil the barrel", meaning "be vigilant about bad apples and get rid of them ASAP." I'm baffled and frustrated by the tendency to use "a few bad apples" as if the saying were "a few bad apples are no big deal, get rid of them if you happen to notice."
I actually don't think reasoning from vague analogy and folk wisdom is all that great an idea, but reasoning from the reverse is probably worse.
Feel plenty free to make the case that we should tolerate some level of misconduct - I might agree. But please don't refer to those involved as "a few bad apples" while you do it.
Moved to a house with a few apple trees last spring and.. yeah. You have to pull those out quick or you'll be bringing the farmer next door wheelbarrowfulls of soft apples for animal feed :-(
You're overthinking my point. I don't care about the folk wisdom of bad apples.
I was just using it as a way of expressing the issue at the centre of aiming to have a zero tolerance society.
Not tolerating misconduct will always lead to ever increasing intrusion into our lives and people that choose not to take part where they can will automatically be viewed with suspicion for it because the ignorant assumption is only people with something to hide would do that.
I was just using it as a way of expressing the issue at the centre of aiming to have a zero tolerance society.
Not tolerating misconduct will always lead to ever increasing intrusion into our lives and people that choose not to take part where they can will automatically be viewed with suspicion for it because the ignorant assumption is only people with something to hide would do that.
And our society seems to have picked the latter because it sounds good when it comes out of the mouth of a politician. This is probably a weakness of democracy.
It's probably a weakness of democracy, sure, but it's not as though "total financial freedom and anonymity" are common properties of non-democratic states.
Most of the problems in democracies seem to exist, possibly magnified, in the alternatives.
Most of the problems in democracies seem to exist, possibly magnified, in the alternatives.
I think it's more of a weakness of societies with resources. The drive to ensure 'goodness' is even stronger among authoritarian governments
It's fine to check the ticket before letting people in. However, movie theater employees can also interrupt people in the middle of the film to check their tickets. People pay money to see a movie and are interrupted because the theater staff can't determine who has or hasn't paid.
I think that's wrong on principle but they don't see anything wrong with it.
I think that's wrong on principle but they don't see anything wrong with it.
If "property is theft" is too harsh, how about "property is theft until proven otherwise"?
Whether you agree with it or not, money laundering laws usually go in this direction.
Whether you agree with it or not, money laundering laws usually go in this direction.
How else do you propose taxation is assured? Blind trust?
Tax assets not transactions.
Land ownership is registered for good public purposes which does not unreasonably destroy privacy concerns - it's usually obvious who (person or business) controls the land anyway (who should a tenant pay the rent to? who gets to decide if you can be a tenant?) and it gives people a great deal of confidence that they know that whoever is recorded in the government land registry as having a right to sell the property actually has that right. The common law approach of having to hold a series of documents that identify a continuous line of owners going back to some unconfirmable initial grant by a long dead king is not in the interest of the purchaser of the land.
Moreover, the market distortions taxing land (as the primary source of government income) will have are generally positive. A person can no longer buy a house in the hope that the land it sits on will double in value. They can only buy a house in the hope that they are capable of making a profit out of it; the land purchase merely gives them the right to improve it.
The same advantages may be visible for taxation of share holdings: instead of simply trying to profit from someone else's actions, you would buy shares because you think the dividends will exceed other income sources for the same purchase. It may be legitimate to have anonymous share holdings which require active detective work, so it's possible this would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
Land ownership is registered for good public purposes which does not unreasonably destroy privacy concerns - it's usually obvious who (person or business) controls the land anyway (who should a tenant pay the rent to? who gets to decide if you can be a tenant?) and it gives people a great deal of confidence that they know that whoever is recorded in the government land registry as having a right to sell the property actually has that right. The common law approach of having to hold a series of documents that identify a continuous line of owners going back to some unconfirmable initial grant by a long dead king is not in the interest of the purchaser of the land.
Moreover, the market distortions taxing land (as the primary source of government income) will have are generally positive. A person can no longer buy a house in the hope that the land it sits on will double in value. They can only buy a house in the hope that they are capable of making a profit out of it; the land purchase merely gives them the right to improve it.
The same advantages may be visible for taxation of share holdings: instead of simply trying to profit from someone else's actions, you would buy shares because you think the dividends will exceed other income sources for the same purchase. It may be legitimate to have anonymous share holdings which require active detective work, so it's possible this would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
> Tax assets not transactions.
I know I've said that we shouldn't do public policy by taxes but taxing wealth instead of income probably isn't easy. We can tax income because one person's income is another person's expense if I understand how this works.
I know I've said that we shouldn't do public policy by taxes but taxing wealth instead of income probably isn't easy. We can tax income because one person's income is another person's expense if I understand how this works.
Reminds me of annecdote of old tax policies on things like silverware and the difficulty in believing and searches from one austere preacher who anomalously for his station didn't own a single set. And others like the tax on windows which lead to boarding up of windows in slums and became derided as a tax on light and air.
The answer seems to be that how well it works varies heavily on what the asset.
The answer seems to be that how well it works varies heavily on what the asset.
"it's usually obvious who (person or business) controls the land anyway"
That's really not the case if the asset is owned by an opaque offshore company or trust - it's then pretty much impossible to know who the beneficial owner actually is.
That's really not the case if the asset is owned by an opaque offshore company or trust - it's then pretty much impossible to know who the beneficial owner actually is.
Sort-of.
You can make use of Adverse Possession to take ownership of land. The owner must reclaim their property, (and prove their ownership) or loose all rights to it. Unfortunately in UK squatting in a residential property is a crime, amusingly adverse possession still applies - you could claim someone's house but go to jail.
It's a weak threat though, most luxury apartment blocks used for 'investment' have security, you need to reside continuously for 10 years, they will send the owner a letter, etc.
I would like to see the principle of 'use it or lose-it' for limited public goods like land.
You can make use of Adverse Possession to take ownership of land. The owner must reclaim their property, (and prove their ownership) or loose all rights to it. Unfortunately in UK squatting in a residential property is a crime, amusingly adverse possession still applies - you could claim someone's house but go to jail.
It's a weak threat though, most luxury apartment blocks used for 'investment' have security, you need to reside continuously for 10 years, they will send the owner a letter, etc.
I would like to see the principle of 'use it or lose-it' for limited public goods like land.
[deleted]
Sure, why not? It has worked for many years before.
The terms like "money laundering" are only recent and swept through without properly understanding the privacy implications (and probably didn't envisage the pervasiveness of modern electronic surveillance & data breaches in today's digital world).
Anyhow, advancements in cryptographic Zero-knowledge proofs could hold the key in solving some of these problems (proof that funds are clean without reveling the source). Currently there are some scalability problems, but progress is being made so I'm hopeful. Wikipedia has a good write-up about the basics of ZKP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
The terms like "money laundering" are only recent and swept through without properly understanding the privacy implications (and probably didn't envisage the pervasiveness of modern electronic surveillance & data breaches in today's digital world).
Anyhow, advancements in cryptographic Zero-knowledge proofs could hold the key in solving some of these problems (proof that funds are clean without reveling the source). Currently there are some scalability problems, but progress is being made so I'm hopeful. Wikipedia has a good write-up about the basics of ZKP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
> Sure, why not? It has worked for many years before.
Citation very much needed. It depends on what you mean by "working".
There's references to tax evasion going back before the Roman Empire. For an example from the era of the Roman Empire, the topic of tax evasion is where the story of "give to Caesar what is his" (Mark 12:17) comes from. (I've found earlier Greek references going back to at least 300BC, but that's the easiest example to verify).
The state works better when it has funds to deliver on those plans - though there are many other factors that can disrupt it such as incompetence and corruption.
"Money laundering" may be a recent term, but it is not a recent concept. In fact some notable conquests on the ancient world wouldn't have been possible without concealing ill-gotten funds. It was a common tactic for avoiding paying tribute to a neighbour who defeated you.
Citation very much needed. It depends on what you mean by "working".
There's references to tax evasion going back before the Roman Empire. For an example from the era of the Roman Empire, the topic of tax evasion is where the story of "give to Caesar what is his" (Mark 12:17) comes from. (I've found earlier Greek references going back to at least 300BC, but that's the easiest example to verify).
The state works better when it has funds to deliver on those plans - though there are many other factors that can disrupt it such as incompetence and corruption.
"Money laundering" may be a recent term, but it is not a recent concept. In fact some notable conquests on the ancient world wouldn't have been possible without concealing ill-gotten funds. It was a common tactic for avoiding paying tribute to a neighbour who defeated you.
I don't think you need any citation or reference to know that even as early as 20 years ago there wasn't as much pervasive computerized record keeping and surveillance as there is now. By "worked well" I mean people paid their taxes and the overwhelming majority were law abiding.
Here's one example to ponder about: if we had this kind of surveillance earlier, would things like the Civil Rights Movement and generally the 60's counterculture come about? I.e. the era of "sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"? If only the authorities had the tools that they have today, oh boy! Don't like the liberation of sex? Is rock'n'roll the Devi's music? Fine. We'll close your PayPal account.
Privacy is very important for having a free society and freedom of expression. Financial privacy should be no exception.
Here's one example to ponder about: if we had this kind of surveillance earlier, would things like the Civil Rights Movement and generally the 60's counterculture come about? I.e. the era of "sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"? If only the authorities had the tools that they have today, oh boy! Don't like the liberation of sex? Is rock'n'roll the Devi's music? Fine. We'll close your PayPal account.
Privacy is very important for having a free society and freedom of expression. Financial privacy should be no exception.
Majority of people paid their taxes, but many didn't, many more than today. Think of mafias of all kinds. So law abiding majority had to pay more to cover state expenses. Without computerized record keeping taxes were collected in person, often with support of armed force. And tax evasion could be as simple as hiding in the woods when tax collector comes. It worked, but not so well.
> By "worked well" I mean people paid their taxes and the overwhelming majority were law abiding.
as i understand, the "overwhelming majority" (lower and middle class) are not the focus of the problem here as they rarely use tax havens to circumvent taxes anyway (it's probably not cost effective). this is all about those who have the funds and motives to circumvent taxation, who happen to be a minority - even thought they're not a minority when it comes to taxable income; the 1% or whatever.
as for the rest of your argument, i don't completely agree. while you're probably right in practice, i.e. the authorities would have used their tools against those movements, the goals of those movements were different. the civil rights movement was probably illegal at the time but the goal was to change the laws to make it legal. same for sex. no millionaire wants to make tax evasion legal, as that would affect all tax payers, even those of the lower and middle class. they want that only for themselves.
i agree that (hard) drugs are probably a comparable example - it's illegal and puts a strain on society. on the other hand, use of hard addicting drugs can be categorized as an illness. so should we label money hoarding and tax evasion an illness? offer treatment options? allow them supervised safe spaces to evade taxes so we can offer them help?
i'm not convinced that financial privacy whould be no exception. there must be limits if it affects the others. i also don't think environmental pollution should be an issue of privacy - you shouldn't be able to pollute the air and claim it's nobodys business, as your factory stands on your own private plot of land.
as i understand, the "overwhelming majority" (lower and middle class) are not the focus of the problem here as they rarely use tax havens to circumvent taxes anyway (it's probably not cost effective). this is all about those who have the funds and motives to circumvent taxation, who happen to be a minority - even thought they're not a minority when it comes to taxable income; the 1% or whatever.
as for the rest of your argument, i don't completely agree. while you're probably right in practice, i.e. the authorities would have used their tools against those movements, the goals of those movements were different. the civil rights movement was probably illegal at the time but the goal was to change the laws to make it legal. same for sex. no millionaire wants to make tax evasion legal, as that would affect all tax payers, even those of the lower and middle class. they want that only for themselves.
i agree that (hard) drugs are probably a comparable example - it's illegal and puts a strain on society. on the other hand, use of hard addicting drugs can be categorized as an illness. so should we label money hoarding and tax evasion an illness? offer treatment options? allow them supervised safe spaces to evade taxes so we can offer them help?
i'm not convinced that financial privacy whould be no exception. there must be limits if it affects the others. i also don't think environmental pollution should be an issue of privacy - you shouldn't be able to pollute the air and claim it's nobodys business, as your factory stands on your own private plot of land.
Design tax policy so that it doesn't force the government to be involved in every single transaction people engage in. Something like a land value tax, perhaps.
They have something similar in Aus called the Capital Gains Tax and it is something that is inherrently political, unfortunately you can't uncouple the government from as they provide the public service that maintain and collect taxes. Honestly the public service should be answerable to parliament, not government.
Not to mention CGT been tweaked to ineffectiveness by previous governments by excluding assets from its calculations, notably housing, which has skewed CGT away from its original purpose and it's now more of a stick to whack at industries that aren't cozy with the current government.
Not to mention CGT been tweaked to ineffectiveness by previous governments by excluding assets from its calculations, notably housing, which has skewed CGT away from its original purpose and it's now more of a stick to whack at industries that aren't cozy with the current government.
The US has a CGT, capital gains are taxed at your normal marginal income tax rate unless you hold them for a minimum time in which case you pay a slightly lower rate. Though they do provide some exemptions for the family home. Not all that political thing.
In fact in many countries CGT is only used to refer to the LOWER version of the tax ... after all you should pay income tax whether you make your income digging ditches, house flipping, or day trading
In fact in many countries CGT is only used to refer to the LOWER version of the tax ... after all you should pay income tax whether you make your income digging ditches, house flipping, or day trading
Tax the corporation when an individual buys goods. Essentially a much bigger VAT.
VAT is regressive - that is it takes a proportionately larger chunk the poorer you are - often considered unfair. For example if I and Warren Buffet buy a car then I have spent a much larger percentage of my overall wealth than he does
Different VAT categories exist though. Not every country uses them but it's a tool in the toolbox. On the other hand, taxes in a lot of European countries are regressive.
Warren Buffet is likely to buy a much more expensive car, or cars.
He's spending more on everything than you are.
That doesn't even things up, of course, but then neither does the current system. It would arguably be closer to even.
The beauty of a universal sales tax (as an alternative to income tax), in addition to the fact that the wealthy consume more of everything, is that a transaction tax is more difficult to lobby loopholes into.
And, of course, it potentially doesn't need as large (read expensive) a bureaucracy to manage and enforce it.
It also removes the burden of record keeping/reporting from consumers and payroll tax from employers.
A lot of people have spent time thinking about the idea. One example: https://fairtax.org/
It's not a problem free solution of course, but neither is the current one. Someday a proposal for a transaction tax might even make it out of committee.
He's spending more on everything than you are.
That doesn't even things up, of course, but then neither does the current system. It would arguably be closer to even.
The beauty of a universal sales tax (as an alternative to income tax), in addition to the fact that the wealthy consume more of everything, is that a transaction tax is more difficult to lobby loopholes into.
And, of course, it potentially doesn't need as large (read expensive) a bureaucracy to manage and enforce it.
It also removes the burden of record keeping/reporting from consumers and payroll tax from employers.
A lot of people have spent time thinking about the idea. One example: https://fairtax.org/
It's not a problem free solution of course, but neither is the current one. Someday a proposal for a transaction tax might even make it out of committee.
> Warren Buffet is likely to buy a much more expensive car, or cars.
According to [1] Warren Buffett's house is worth .001% of his total wealth, at $652,619.
And for Warren Buffet to pay sales tax proportional to someone with $500,000 in assets buying a $50,000 car, he'd have to buy the world's most expensive car - a $5 million Koenigsegg of which only 3 were ever made - 1700 times over.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-modest-home-b...
According to [1] Warren Buffett's house is worth .001% of his total wealth, at $652,619.
And for Warren Buffet to pay sales tax proportional to someone with $500,000 in assets buying a $50,000 car, he'd have to buy the world's most expensive car - a $5 million Koenigsegg of which only 3 were ever made - 1700 times over.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-modest-home-b...
In the grand scheme of things, Warren Buffet does not spend any money on taxable products. He invests money, but investments cannot be taxed in a VAT scheme, for obvious reasons.
Once the cash is in the bank it becomes really hard to verify. It’s not like a ‘tax paid’ marker is added to every dollar in your account.
Nor could it, with the millions of rounds of taxes an average paper dollars will see.
> Nor could it, with the millions of rounds of taxes an average paper dollars will see.
Somebody said a computer can't do something, somebody prove them wrong!
Somebody said a computer can't do something, somebody prove them wrong!
If you want to make money stop being fungible, well, you probably could use computers for that. But is it a wise idea?
Risk based assessment. You look at macro parameters that businesses submit and if it flags you among other companies you dive deeper and request information from business itself. More friendly approach to
If you find something fishy - you penalize business for different misconduct and signal them to be compliant in the future.
In general big businesses/taxpayers will be compliant anyway (but use all the loopholes that exist in your tax law)
While smaller businesses will have trouble to be compliant not because they don't want to, but because they can't have their accounting straight.
So there is no good justification for government to scan every transaction without prior justification, since most actors want to be compliant anyway.
I come from post USSR country and have a small fortune accumulated abroad. I don't have to pay taxes from this money, since I'm not a tax resident in my country at the moment. But since laws in my country work against regular people and some of them are prohibitive to work abroad/in modern digital way - the moment I transfer this money back home, our tax authority will pull some outdated law and the burden of proof will be on me (with my bank account frozen)
I DON'T NEED THIS.
So please, 1st world countries, don't send information on my hard earned money, to our 25 year strong socialist dictator.
If you find something fishy - you penalize business for different misconduct and signal them to be compliant in the future.
In general big businesses/taxpayers will be compliant anyway (but use all the loopholes that exist in your tax law)
While smaller businesses will have trouble to be compliant not because they don't want to, but because they can't have their accounting straight.
So there is no good justification for government to scan every transaction without prior justification, since most actors want to be compliant anyway.
I come from post USSR country and have a small fortune accumulated abroad. I don't have to pay taxes from this money, since I'm not a tax resident in my country at the moment. But since laws in my country work against regular people and some of them are prohibitive to work abroad/in modern digital way - the moment I transfer this money back home, our tax authority will pull some outdated law and the burden of proof will be on me (with my bank account frozen)
I DON'T NEED THIS.
So please, 1st world countries, don't send information on my hard earned money, to our 25 year strong socialist dictator.
Money is a claim on future production, and you don't get to transfer that claim over other people's work without caveats, whether it's inheritance tax, limits on gifts, or wealth taxes.
Of course. I'm not talking about avoiding taxes, or skirting other laws. The issue here is simple privacy for the common law abiding people.
What you own can never be an entirely private matter. It's fundamentally about your relation to everyone else in the world, things you are allowed to do that they aren't.
"work" is doing a lot of work here, especially when talking about generational wealth.
That’s certainly a popular view, but it’s not a given by any means. You will find plenty of people that think giving their children $100 should be possible without any government intervention or taxation. Unless you’re against that as well, we’re talking about arbitrary lines for when the government gets to wet its beak.
There’s an arbitrary line between handshake and battery, yet most people and the law system can see the difference.
Claiming there’s no qualitative difference between someone giving $100 dollar to their child as a birthday gift, and inheritance of billion dollars, seems like a weak argument.
Then it should be obvious, no? Is $1 million ok? That’s a small single family home in Palo Alto in disrepair.
So how about $5 mil? Nice larger lot home in Palo Alto that some dying parents bought in 1940. Not even retirement money in the bay but could be middle class retirement in Alaska.
Where is your “obvious” line? Your handshake/battery analogy is shitty because it involves a victim and medical/first responder reports.
We’re talking about setting some line where we feel as a society it’s morally ok to start taking money that has already been taxed strictly based on “that seems excessive” without any logical criteria.
So how about $5 mil? Nice larger lot home in Palo Alto that some dying parents bought in 1940. Not even retirement money in the bay but could be middle class retirement in Alaska.
Where is your “obvious” line? Your handshake/battery analogy is shitty because it involves a victim and medical/first responder reports.
We’re talking about setting some line where we feel as a society it’s morally ok to start taking money that has already been taxed strictly based on “that seems excessive” without any logical criteria.
Validation of which requires a functioning pervasive VAT or similar mechanism to prevent laundering and fraud. There's no way to win here.
Truly anonymous, or even mostly anonymous money is basically isomorphic to bitcoin: it's mostly fraud and illegality, with just enough privacy advocates (and a few dirty preppers) to make it look legitimate.
Truly anonymous, or even mostly anonymous money is basically isomorphic to bitcoin: it's mostly fraud and illegality, with just enough privacy advocates (and a few dirty preppers) to make it look legitimate.
Some countries have a tax on wealth in addition to income tax. (Switzerland for instance, maybe US in a few years)
These 4 European countries still have it [1]. Apparently it's difficult to enforce, probably for reasons touched on in this thread.
[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/4-european-countries-wealth-...
[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/4-european-countries-wealth-...
Say there's a wealth tax? At no point can you be be sure it will never have tax implementations ever again.
I'm not talking about dodging taxes. Also, if there happens to be a new tax, I'll pay it, and I'm not a criminal,
I just want some privacy.
I just want some privacy.
Well that nicely circles back to the OP article, which shows that privacy is either an illusion or a gamble, depending on your perspective.
Well, privacy has to be gamble. If I do something, I leave a trace. I might directly interact with someone (buying drugs, for instance) or it might be in the privacy of my own room. But I'm always gambling that (a) anyone who I interact with won't dob me in and (b) no third party will detect my actions.
Obviously I hope my bank keeps a record of my assets with them. Perhaps they could merely keep my assets sealed in a box identified with a code and locked by a key, and they cannot open the box without the key, and I keep the only copy of that key. Perhaps the box is an encrypted database record and the key is a nice megabyte long random number which takes an hour to confirm. I can suppose it's secure (for the time being). And it's formally anonymous, since they don't even record that I posses the key.
But I still leave a trace when I access it. It's an intrinsic risk. I also risk dying every time I walk out of my house. I do things that have risk involved because it is necessary. Risk is not an argument against an activity.
Obviously I hope my bank keeps a record of my assets with them. Perhaps they could merely keep my assets sealed in a box identified with a code and locked by a key, and they cannot open the box without the key, and I keep the only copy of that key. Perhaps the box is an encrypted database record and the key is a nice megabyte long random number which takes an hour to confirm. I can suppose it's secure (for the time being). And it's formally anonymous, since they don't even record that I posses the key.
But I still leave a trace when I access it. It's an intrinsic risk. I also risk dying every time I walk out of my house. I do things that have risk involved because it is necessary. Risk is not an argument against an activity.
because "You didn't build that!"
Also, governments are finding new and creative ways to put new taxes on already legal money.
So yeah, privacy matters.
So yeah, privacy matters.
> Also, governments are finding new and creative ways to put new taxes on already legal money.
Care to cite some? That's just a silly point. There's probably no area of regulatory theory more well travelled than taxation. Imagine a trick and someone has tried it, often thousands of years ago.
And it's even incorrect as a practical matter in the modern USA, where government revenue as a share of GDP has been going steadily downward for like 70 years now, even in the face of decades of deficits. It's literally the policy position of the ruling party!
Care to cite some? That's just a silly point. There's probably no area of regulatory theory more well travelled than taxation. Imagine a trick and someone has tried it, often thousands of years ago.
And it's even incorrect as a practical matter in the modern USA, where government revenue as a share of GDP has been going steadily downward for like 70 years now, even in the face of decades of deficits. It's literally the policy position of the ruling party!
>And it's even incorrect as a practical matter in the modern USA, where government revenue as a share of GDP has been going steadily downward for like 70 years now
Because government spending increased explosively before those 70 years. First, the government essentially took a loan from future generations through social security and second, there was an enormous war that the government mobilized the economy to fight. You would expect spending to go back down after both of them.
Because government spending increased explosively before those 70 years. First, the government essentially took a loan from future generations through social security and second, there was an enormous war that the government mobilized the economy to fight. You would expect spending to go back down after both of them.
>> Also, governments are finding new and creative ways to put new taxes on already legal money.
In addition to the soft tax of excessive inflation mentioned by the other poster, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed wealth taxes.
https://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-tax-definition-explai...
You can agree with that or not morally, but it is by definition a tax on already legal (and taxed during income) money.
In addition to the soft tax of excessive inflation mentioned by the other poster, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed wealth taxes.
https://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-tax-definition-explai...
You can agree with that or not morally, but it is by definition a tax on already legal (and taxed during income) money.
We already have estate and property taxation, though. It's not like wealth taxes don't exist, they're just levied at specific times or on specific kinds of assets.
True. Typically property taxes are to fund things at a local level though, and not sent back to the federal government for massive programs.
My biggest issue with a wealth tax on the super-wealthy is that it would quickly morph into a wealth tax on everyone above lower-middle class.
Old article but the numbers have scaled proportionately...
"If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode." [0]
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stoss...
My biggest issue with a wealth tax on the super-wealthy is that it would quickly morph into a wealth tax on everyone above lower-middle class.
Old article but the numbers have scaled proportionately...
"If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode." [0]
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stoss...
Uh... your point is about a wealth tax but your facts are about income taxation. In fact, there isn't a whole lot of net "income" reported by the very wealthy, because most of what they make is sheltered investments of various forms. Yet , they have a very large chunk of the total assets owned (like 30% of the country is billionaire assets!), completely disproportionate to the fraction they pay in tax.
Addressing that discontinuity is exactly what a wealth tax is about. I'm not completely sold on it myself (they're very hard to administer and a giant moral hazard), but don't allow yourself to be fooled into thinking it's a dumb or discredited idea. There's a real problem, and wealth taxes represent a real, if imperfect, solution.
Addressing that discontinuity is exactly what a wealth tax is about. I'm not completely sold on it myself (they're very hard to administer and a giant moral hazard), but don't allow yourself to be fooled into thinking it's a dumb or discredited idea. There's a real problem, and wealth taxes represent a real, if imperfect, solution.
> the modern USA, where government revenue as a share of GDP has been going steadily downward for like 70 years now
It has?
https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1900_2020U...
It has?
https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1900_2020U...
It's not only that.
It's about building a society that can be based on assumption of honesty and trust rather than surveillance and authoritarianism. At present, our electronic monetary system has morohed into something that resembles George Orwell's 1984.
It's about building a society that can be based on assumption of honesty and trust rather than surveillance and authoritarianism. At present, our electronic monetary system has morohed into something that resembles George Orwell's 1984.
It was possible for many empires to tax effectively before modern bookkeeping. Property tax needs very little in the way of financial records to administer.
> modern book-keeping
Can you clarify what precisely you mean by this statement? Most empires historically-speaking have had sophisticated book-keeping methods. Chinese empires used to tax anyone who exited a city on the profits they made during their visit. The Romans when they took over Egypt, taxed the hell out of it and for that purpose kept meticulous records on all of the transactions that happened. The notion of Tax itself goes back to Mesopotamia.
(I wrote that based from history books I've read over the years. But this link will do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_accounting#Ancient_...)
Can you clarify what precisely you mean by this statement? Most empires historically-speaking have had sophisticated book-keeping methods. Chinese empires used to tax anyone who exited a city on the profits they made during their visit. The Romans when they took over Egypt, taxed the hell out of it and for that purpose kept meticulous records on all of the transactions that happened. The notion of Tax itself goes back to Mesopotamia.
(I wrote that based from history books I've read over the years. But this link will do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_accounting#Ancient_...)
The general principle of a tax which can be levied fairly, equally, clearly, and with low costs of collection or effort, are not new:
The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2, Part 2: Of Taxes.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_V/...
Smith's preference was for a tax on land, which is difficult to move off-shore.
The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2, Part 2: Of Taxes.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_V/...
Smith's preference was for a tax on land, which is difficult to move off-shore.
About arbitrary taxation, I understand that's how they handled it in ancient Athens. Some nobody would say something like "It's been a while since we taxed the Alcmaenids, I propose they pay for the next Panathanea festival".
Since that state was radically democratic, it may not have had the corrupting influence on the taxers as Smith suggests... but maybe it was a factor in the aristocrats allying with their rival Sparta to topple their own constitution.
Since that state was radically democratic, it may not have had the corrupting influence on the taxers as Smith suggests... but maybe it was a factor in the aristocrats allying with their rival Sparta to topple their own constitution.
In Athen's case I don't think it technically counted as corruption in the "misappropriation" sense as the intended beneficiaries received it. Given the number of votes to "pillage and enslaved their neighbors" it would certainly count morally if not for the fact it was "the norm".
At that point the difference between bandits and city state military was essentially just diplomacy in terms of how their neighbors and survivors would react to somebody putting killing or enslaving them.
At that point the difference between bandits and city state military was essentially just diplomacy in terms of how their neighbors and survivors would react to somebody putting killing or enslaving them.
> Smith's preference was for a tax on land, which is difficult to move off-shore.
I like the idea of land tax, but I like that statement even more. (Land tax, on paper, seems like it would be such a good idea, and transaction taxes are nowadays so invasive, that it's incomprehensible to me why we don't have them.)
I like the idea of land tax, but I like that statement even more. (Land tax, on paper, seems like it would be such a good idea, and transaction taxes are nowadays so invasive, that it's incomprehensible to me why we don't have them.)
Thanks. It just came to me :)
Not who you replied to, however modern taxation requires lots of information to work. For instance income tax works, because every employer is reporting how much they paid you. Then you report how much money you got paid, then factor in deductions such as specific contributions to charities etc. All of which are reporting to the Government at the same time.
Before the advent of computing and auditing it would be hard to tell if a blacksmith sold 50 or 55 swords. So income tax wasn't viable and instead taxation on lands were more common.
Before the advent of computing and auditing it would be hard to tell if a blacksmith sold 50 or 55 swords. So income tax wasn't viable and instead taxation on lands were more common.
HK raises practically all of its revenue from land and (until China started screwing it up) it was one of the richest, most developed places on Earth.
>HK raises practically all of its revenue from land
I don't know what you mean. Hong Kong is a trading port, and any wealth it "creates" is done by refining imported materials. This option is only available someplace lots of trade naturally occurs, like Hong Kong's river basin.
I don't know what you mean. Hong Kong is a trading port, and any wealth it "creates" is done by refining imported materials. This option is only available someplace lots of trade naturally occurs, like Hong Kong's river basin.
I mean the government raises its tax revenue almost exclusively by leasing land and taxing real estate transactions instead of taxing income like we do in the West.
This system isn't very exportable, I can't imagine the nationalization of land being a popular move no matter how low you promised to make income tax.
Okay and?
My point is that to collect property tax it's easier for the Government and Income tax is harder for the Government. It requires more reporting...
It has nothing to do with the value extracted.
My point is that to collect property tax it's easier for the Government and Income tax is harder for the Government. It requires more reporting...
It has nothing to do with the value extracted.
My point is you don't need income tax at all to maintain a developed society as demonstrated in HK, Washington State, etc.
What if I choose not to spend my wealth on property?
If the only tax in a jurisdiction is an income tax and you choose to make your money through capital gains, you don't pay tax.
If the only tax in a jurisdiction is a land tax and you don't own land, you don't pay tax. This will either be because you ideologically are opposed to paying taxes and you're willing to pay more in foregone profits/opportunity cost, or because there's better more profitable investments elsewhere in the marketplace, in which case land values will grow more slowly till an equilibrium is reached.
But since most transacations are tied to land somehow (because the good was imported at the port, transported by trucks that are stored in a truckyard, and sold to you by a person who lives in a house using mobile phones that connect to transmitter towers) so you won't be engaging in some kind of pure untaxed marketplace.
It'll probably create a stockmarket bubble though. Best to tax shares as well as land.
If the only tax in a jurisdiction is a land tax and you don't own land, you don't pay tax. This will either be because you ideologically are opposed to paying taxes and you're willing to pay more in foregone profits/opportunity cost, or because there's better more profitable investments elsewhere in the marketplace, in which case land values will grow more slowly till an equilibrium is reached.
But since most transacations are tied to land somehow (because the good was imported at the port, transported by trucks that are stored in a truckyard, and sold to you by a person who lives in a house using mobile phones that connect to transmitter towers) so you won't be engaging in some kind of pure untaxed marketplace.
It'll probably create a stockmarket bubble though. Best to tax shares as well as land.
I live next to a bank who paid an $8.9 billion fine for money laundering. Another bank, Italy’s largest, laundered money for 10-years for Iran, Cuba and Libya in the United States. They paid a $1.3 billion fine, pled to conspiracy and received deferred prosecution.
One of the executives in that bank is the older brother to a star witness in the Presidential impeachment inquiry. Yet no one really cares about crimes committed by corporations.
One of the executives in that bank is the older brother to a star witness in the Presidential impeachment inquiry. Yet no one really cares about crimes committed by corporations.
A great many people care about crimes committed by the corporations. But, unlike Rupert Murdoch, we have no ability to influence the prosecutors.
> Yet no one really cares about crimes committed by corporations.
Lots of people do. They just don't happen to have the evidence to put those corporations in jail. The presumption of innocence is a valuable principle, but it cuts both ways. It defends you as much as it does corporations (who have A TON more resources to prevent/ mitigate a prosecution).
Lots of people do. They just don't happen to have the evidence to put those corporations in jail. The presumption of innocence is a valuable principle, but it cuts both ways. It defends you as much as it does corporations (who have A TON more resources to prevent/ mitigate a prosecution).
If you read the article South Dakota is a great choice. It's a fantastic read on the history of how these states to harbor cash came to be. This part of the article sums it up in a very compelling manner:
"Here is an example from one academic paper on South Dakotan trusts: after 200 years, $1m placed in trust and growing tax-free at an annual rate of 6% will have become $136bn. After 300 years, it will have grown to $50.4tn. That is more than twice the current size of the US economy, and this trust will last for ever, assuming that society doesn’t collapse altogether under the weight of this ever-swelling leach."
So, yes - if you want to anonymously store your legally gained cash you have options stateside.
"Here is an example from one academic paper on South Dakotan trusts: after 200 years, $1m placed in trust and growing tax-free at an annual rate of 6% will have become $136bn. After 300 years, it will have grown to $50.4tn. That is more than twice the current size of the US economy, and this trust will last for ever, assuming that society doesn’t collapse altogether under the weight of this ever-swelling leach."
So, yes - if you want to anonymously store your legally gained cash you have options stateside.
That example is a bit ridiculous. Yes, compounding is powerful. But there’s also inflation, and a single passively invested $1mm is never going to own the entire economy (if nothing else, returns would be distorted by scale).
That said ... this is the premise of some entertaining science fiction.
That said ... this is the premise of some entertaining science fiction.
First it's factual. By qualifying it as "ridiculous" serves what purpose exactly? The point is that $1MM is used as an example and you could swap that amount with $50MM, $100MM to showcase greater gains in exponentially less time. That is the point the article is making overall. No billionaire is going to harbor $1MM in a trust with the intent to have some heir pull it out in 200 years. But the people with those means can leverage the same monetary vehicle to do the same thing in much shorter time frames with higher initial investment.
> That said ... this is the premise of some entertaining science fiction.
Or not. None of it it fictional. Feel free to clarify what you mean, but the only thing fictional is the entirety of your comment.
> That said ... this is the premise of some entertaining science fiction.
Or not. None of it it fictional. Feel free to clarify what you mean, but the only thing fictional is the entirety of your comment.
Perhaps you're thinking of this classic scene from Red Dwarf:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEu0o62ycmg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEu0o62ycmg
> That is more than twice the current size of the US economy, and this trust will last for ever, assuming that society doesn’t collapse altogether under the weight of this ever-swelling leach.
Economically speaking, this is Not Even Wrong.
Economically speaking, this is Not Even Wrong.
Those numbers are less impressive after you correct for inflation. Meanwhile if a deposit is truly anonymous, I don't see how I could ever be reassured that I could ever withdraw the money later.
Maybe, because you don't own your cash, your cash is a credit that society acknowledges to you, so hiding it from which makes it valuable is nuts.
Can you eat your cash? Can you fly using your cash? Can you build a phone with cash? No, you can't do anything with cash without a public exchange that might be accountable.
Unfortunately, people did buy the idea that ”Markets can work without accountability”, and that's what you do when laundering money in a fiscal paradise. Hopefully, crypto can drive us out of that craziness of money as a good.
Can you eat your cash? Can you fly using your cash? Can you build a phone with cash? No, you can't do anything with cash without a public exchange that might be accountable.
Unfortunately, people did buy the idea that ”Markets can work without accountability”, and that's what you do when laundering money in a fiscal paradise. Hopefully, crypto can drive us out of that craziness of money as a good.
This is quite a good point.
No-one is stopping you from stockpiling Oil, Gold, or whatever.
Unfortunately financial crimes are (apparently) particularly easy to hide, and "follow the money" has proven the only way to bring some individuals to deserved justice.
The problem is that our participation in the financial system affects other people. We also get benefits from that system such as auditing and regulation of our banks to protect our rights and interests, so it’s reasonable that we pay the price for this and one of those is some measure of privacy. Not all our privacy, just some of it.
> What if I just want a place to anonymously store my legally gained cash?
Anonymously storing it makes it illegal. With Europe's negative interest rates, they're currently in the process of making personal storage illegal for large amounts (you're supposed to store it in a bank to pay negative interest).
Anonymously storing it makes it illegal. With Europe's negative interest rates, they're currently in the process of making personal storage illegal for large amounts (you're supposed to store it in a bank to pay negative interest).
>Europe's negative interest rates
Couldn't believe it, so I looked it up https://www.ft.com/content/74573de6-0a15-11ea-bb52-34c8d9dc6...
that is bizarre
Couldn't believe it, so I looked it up https://www.ft.com/content/74573de6-0a15-11ea-bb52-34c8d9dc6...
that is bizarre
ideally, governments only need to know how much each person spent/earned. Not where and how. But , it seems there is no way to make even tiny amounts of purchases without a bunch of people sharing your full details with each other.
On the other hand, there's crypto
On the other hand, there's crypto
Which is not anonymous.
Some of it is - ZCash for example.
But most of it isn't.
But most of it isn't.
What about the last thread I read that concluded Monero was the answer here?
Which one's been audited?
Which one's been audited?
Zcash is more likely to be secure than Monero. Both have their issues, but the Monero system is significantly easier to de-anonymize.
> forcing foreign financial institutions to tell the US government about any American-owned assets on their books
This is another interesting part. How can the US "force" a sophisticated wealthy sovereign nation that culturally and morally values banking privacy (not only for the profits), like Switzerland?
It cannot be understated how much power, control and ownership the US has of the world financial system. If Switzerland did not comply, they would have been fully cut-off, unable to participate in any finance at all. It happened swiftly (no pun intended [1]), there was no discussion, only power.
Most of the west is mostly aligned with what the US is doing, so it's not a big deal. Every government wants more visibility, control and power over finances. It is akin to how the US military handles matters of physical force on behalf of the rest of the west.
Just a quick note that the US is equally powerful in the financial arena as they are militaristically, if not more so.
[1] SWIFT is one of the systems Switzerland could have been cut off from
This is another interesting part. How can the US "force" a sophisticated wealthy sovereign nation that culturally and morally values banking privacy (not only for the profits), like Switzerland?
It cannot be understated how much power, control and ownership the US has of the world financial system. If Switzerland did not comply, they would have been fully cut-off, unable to participate in any finance at all. It happened swiftly (no pun intended [1]), there was no discussion, only power.
Most of the west is mostly aligned with what the US is doing, so it's not a big deal. Every government wants more visibility, control and power over finances. It is akin to how the US military handles matters of physical force on behalf of the rest of the west.
Just a quick note that the US is equally powerful in the financial arena as they are militaristically, if not more so.
[1] SWIFT is one of the systems Switzerland could have been cut off from
Fun fact: There is a commonly understood reference in India since as long as i've known. It is that all the corrupt businessmen and politicians stash their money in 'Swiss banks' and if this money could be repatriated a lot of Indian problems will be solved. I know this is exaggerated but this is what even the most average of Indian knows and the country does not have the leverage (at least so far till CRS) to do anything about historical wrongdoings.
Also check the relationship between Mauritius and Africa/India for another example of such a relationship. It is funny though how even in today's world the corrupt from developing countries still manage to move the money around so easily, it happens only because you have the ability to grease the right palms.
Forget about the island countries, i do not think even developed countries like UK (Russian money) or Canada (Vancouver real estate) cooperate enough if the person gets citizenship and is accused in a different country. I know because there is at least one documented case where the proceeds of a large scam in India were funneled to Vancouver real estate, how something like this is possible is beyond my understanding.
Also check the relationship between Mauritius and Africa/India for another example of such a relationship. It is funny though how even in today's world the corrupt from developing countries still manage to move the money around so easily, it happens only because you have the ability to grease the right palms.
Forget about the island countries, i do not think even developed countries like UK (Russian money) or Canada (Vancouver real estate) cooperate enough if the person gets citizenship and is accused in a different country. I know because there is at least one documented case where the proceeds of a large scam in India were funneled to Vancouver real estate, how something like this is possible is beyond my understanding.
> There is a commonly understood reference in India since as long as i've known. It is that all the corrupt businessmen and politicians stash their money in 'Swiss banks'
I think it's also a Hollywood meme - since I remember, the villains always had Swiss bank accounts to store their ill-gotten money.
I think it's also a Hollywood meme - since I remember, the villains always had Swiss bank accounts to store their ill-gotten money.
> It happened swiftly (no pun intended [1]), there was no discussion, only power.
Not trying to take a stance on the wisdom of these policies, but this is a nice example of how realpolitik/power-politics/game-of-thrones is still how the international world works.
Not trying to take a stance on the wisdom of these policies, but this is a nice example of how realpolitik/power-politics/game-of-thrones is still how the international world works.
it's not like power politics ever went away, the question is how they are being utilized
As a Swiss, in a way it was sobering to see one of our dominant industries brought to heel so quickly. On the other hand, it was very satisfying to see those banks, who for decades had hid behind their hand tailored secrecy laws to do business with Nazis, dictators, and drug dealers, and were domestically untouchable, finally clean up their acts.
As for "culturally and morally values privacy", I would find that a lot easier to believe if those privacy advocates had equally lobbied for the privacy of salary statements for the employed. But, hey, someone has to keep paying taxes, if the rich don't.
Now, deprived of other unsavory sources of wealth, Swiss Banks are eagerly dabbling in cryptocurrencies.
As for "culturally and morally values privacy", I would find that a lot easier to believe if those privacy advocates had equally lobbied for the privacy of salary statements for the employed. But, hey, someone has to keep paying taxes, if the rich don't.
Now, deprived of other unsavory sources of wealth, Swiss Banks are eagerly dabbling in cryptocurrencies.
Sincere question: Do the Swiss have any moral debates about the source of wealth from third world countries' dictators, politicians etc and the impact on these countries of their action of enabling the 'theft' ?
Or is the Swiss view generally more like what it has been historically, that they are neutral and provide a service that others can't.
Or is the Swiss view generally more like what it has been historically, that they are neutral and provide a service that others can't.
The traditional view is indeed that we shouldn't legislate things happening in other countries. As an example for what is going on though, we're set to have a vote on the Responsible Business Initiative[0] under which "companies will be legally obliged to incorporate respect for human rights and the environment in all their business activities [...] abroad".
While initiatives usually fail the popular vote, it is not so certain for this one. It has very broad support. All parties have to argue their position regarding initiatives that will get voted on. So yes certainly there is a debate on such issues.
[0] https://corporatejustice.ch/about-the-initiative/
While initiatives usually fail the popular vote, it is not so certain for this one. It has very broad support. All parties have to argue their position regarding initiatives that will get voted on. So yes certainly there is a debate on such issues.
[0] https://corporatejustice.ch/about-the-initiative/
There have been debates for at least 40 years. People like e.g. Jean Ziegler were highly critical of banking practices when otherwise they were still being seen as business as usual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ziegler
35 years ago, there was a referendum that would have prevented banking privacy from being used to cover up crime. It failed decisively, but showed that at least 25% of the voters were in favor.
A few years later, after the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos, Swiss banks for the first time in my memory blocked some of his funds, and subsequently the banks were much more circumspect in dealing with dictators.
The next step was the debate about dormant Holocaust era accounts, which led to an official historical commission. That certainly led to domestic debate, which was complicated somewhat by the international pressure under which Switzerland found itself.
And finally, in recent years, after more scandals and stricter banking rules imposed especially by the US, the banks finally seem to be getting out of the organized crime business.
35 years ago, there was a referendum that would have prevented banking privacy from being used to cover up crime. It failed decisively, but showed that at least 25% of the voters were in favor.
A few years later, after the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos, Swiss banks for the first time in my memory blocked some of his funds, and subsequently the banks were much more circumspect in dealing with dictators.
The next step was the debate about dormant Holocaust era accounts, which led to an official historical commission. That certainly led to domestic debate, which was complicated somewhat by the international pressure under which Switzerland found itself.
And finally, in recent years, after more scandals and stricter banking rules imposed especially by the US, the banks finally seem to be getting out of the organized crime business.
You can view it as that the previous strategy of the biggest players was to give some scraps to other countries like Switzerland to have them as (unofficial) allies, and now they are out for the whole cake and not willing to share anything.
> This is another interesting part. How can the US "force" a sophisticated wealthy sovereign nation that culturally and morally values banking privacy (not only for the profits), like Switzerland?
By taxing in 30% any money coming from institutions in countries not adhering to FATCA
By taxing in 30% any money coming from institutions in countries not adhering to FATCA
It seems to me that they could only prevent transfers to US citizens, or transfers that somehow get routed through the US?
Of course they could try to pressure SWIFT, but there’s no guarantee that would work.
Of course they could try to pressure SWIFT, but there’s no guarantee that would work.
I'm not so sure how aligned the EU is with the US anymore. A lot of what some EU politicians say is about not being able to trust the US. Verhofstadt gives me such an impression at least.
Switzerland isn’t part of the EU.
It's a part of a lot of European treaties and it's aligned with the rest of Western Europe on most things.
>Just a quick note that the US is equally powerful in the financial arena as they are militaristically, if not more so.
This was the trade off Churchill was forced to agree to, as London was being bombed by the Nazis, if he wanted the US to join the war. Before the War the UK ran the World's finance, after the War it was the US. In short the US financial power was birth directly from its military power.
This was the trade off Churchill was forced to agree to, as London was being bombed by the Nazis, if he wanted the US to join the war. Before the War the UK ran the World's finance, after the War it was the US. In short the US financial power was birth directly from its military power.
I don’t think it was a deliberate agreement per se, I feel like it was just the natural outcome after the US helped rebuild a lot of Europe. The previous world order had been ripped apart by the war, and the US was the world’s largest economy by the end.
It was deliberate, on one of the financial summits over the future of financial system after WWII a US changed all the word of GOLD to USD.
there was a planet money episode about it.
Yes it was agreed upon that the US Dollar became the underpinning of international finance at the Bretton Woods conference near the end of WWII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
This has a link to the PMoney episode you're thinking of, as well as a more recent discussion of the economic fight other nations possibly trying to supplant or at least be adjacent to the dollar as a reserve currency.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/07/30/746337868/75-y...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
This has a link to the PMoney episode you're thinking of, as well as a more recent discussion of the economic fight other nations possibly trying to supplant or at least be adjacent to the dollar as a reserve currency.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/07/30/746337868/75-y...
It's the "hidden" rewards of winning the war. The US didn't take any territory (cept leaving bases behind). But they can reap the financial control and profit immensely via this indirect control.
This is why the US does not want https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS to succeed and will do much to sabotage it.
In the world of politicking, there are no good guys - just lesser of evils (or better the devil you know).
This is why the US does not want https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS to succeed and will do much to sabotage it.
In the world of politicking, there are no good guys - just lesser of evils (or better the devil you know).
It was also pretty much the only economy left standing. I don’t think that can be overstated enough.
The entire New World was left standing.
True. The US was an industrial behemoth before even formal involvement in the War and was preposterously powerful in the area. They didn't have it diminished by bombing and gained manufacturing capacity instead of losing it.
While others were unscarred they never "stood up" by the standards of the world scale even if they were also industrialized.
While others were unscarred they never "stood up" by the standards of the world scale even if they were also industrialized.
It was not the UK that ran/runs the world's finance, it's the tax haven of the City of London, with its overseas branches in UK territories that still runs the world's finances.
Current CT: Brexit has to happen before 2020 because otherwise City of London will be subject to EU rules that will cause current anonymities to be revealed.
Current CT: Brexit has to happen before 2020 because otherwise City of London will be subject to EU rules that will cause current anonymities to be revealed.
I am not aware of any tax that is specific to the City of London. How is it a tax heaven?
And half of finance in London is not even located in the City (West End and Canary Wharf).
The UK is certainly not a tax heaven.
And half of finance in London is not even located in the City (West End and Canary Wharf).
The UK is certainly not a tax heaven.
Haven, not heaven. :)
The city has had the deserved reputation for being a tax haven for well over a century.
https://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporat...
The city has had the deserved reputation for being a tax haven for well over a century.
https://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporat...
Thanks. Got caught exactly by what this website describes [1]. “Heaven” was logical from French.
[1] https://jakubmarian.com/is-it-tax-haven-or-tax-heaven-in-eng...
[1] https://jakubmarian.com/is-it-tax-haven-or-tax-heaven-in-eng...
Interesting - didn't know most other languages had it as paradise.
The title is the only part of that page suggesting the City itself is a tax haven.
Well that's simply not true. Even if you want to ignore that one, there's plenty of other articles and books exploring the topic.
> This is another interesting part. How can the US "force" a sophisticated wealthy sovereign nation that culturally and morally values banking privacy (not only for the profits), like Switzerland?
Two reasons come to mind:
1. Switzerland (like EU countries) depends a 100 % on the US for defense, in the sense it would basically turn into Russia / China overnight if the US wasn't a military power protecting them. This alone gives the US pretty much unlimited political leverage.
2. The US has the number 1 world wide spying agency, which acts as the leader to other "Western" spying agencies (see point 1). This means the US knows everything about everybody and thus has unlimited political leverage over anybody. Again this reason alone gives them quite a bit of political leverage over even a country like Switzerland (hands down the most democratic country in the world). Even though Switzerland has political safeguards in place that no other country has (direct democracy); in this case I guess Swiss people didn't mind (or didn't care about) sharing banking info with the US. After all: this helps tax evasion, so why vote against that...
You give some other answers yourself :P
There's no reason for the US to compromise on anything with any country in the Western world. And they don't. See for example: leaked cables on Wikileaks for tons of examples of good deals for the US and shitty deals for all counterparts.
Two reasons come to mind:
1. Switzerland (like EU countries) depends a 100 % on the US for defense, in the sense it would basically turn into Russia / China overnight if the US wasn't a military power protecting them. This alone gives the US pretty much unlimited political leverage.
2. The US has the number 1 world wide spying agency, which acts as the leader to other "Western" spying agencies (see point 1). This means the US knows everything about everybody and thus has unlimited political leverage over anybody. Again this reason alone gives them quite a bit of political leverage over even a country like Switzerland (hands down the most democratic country in the world). Even though Switzerland has political safeguards in place that no other country has (direct democracy); in this case I guess Swiss people didn't mind (or didn't care about) sharing banking info with the US. After all: this helps tax evasion, so why vote against that...
You give some other answers yourself :P
There's no reason for the US to compromise on anything with any country in the Western world. And they don't. See for example: leaked cables on Wikileaks for tons of examples of good deals for the US and shitty deals for all counterparts.
> Switzerland (like EU countries) depends a 100 % on the US for defense, in the sense it would basically turn into Russia / China overnight if the US wasn't a military power protecting them.
Neither Switzerland nor the EU depend "100%" on the US for defense, far from it. Some EU countries are among the biggest military spenders in the world. It's also difficult to see how Switzerland would "turn into Russia / China overnight" given that it's completely surrounded by the EU. How do you imagine that the Russians or Chinese will come to dominate Switzerland? Note that Switzerland managed to maintain its independence in WWII even though it was completely surrounded by the Axis.
Neither Switzerland nor the EU depend "100%" on the US for defense, far from it. Some EU countries are among the biggest military spenders in the world. It's also difficult to see how Switzerland would "turn into Russia / China overnight" given that it's completely surrounded by the EU. How do you imagine that the Russians or Chinese will come to dominate Switzerland? Note that Switzerland managed to maintain its independence in WWII even though it was completely surrounded by the Axis.
China vs France: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail....
Russia vs France: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail....
Russia vs Germany: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail....
The rest of Europe has no military power to speak of. Random example: the Dutch tank force consists of 0 tanks.
> How do you imagine that the Russians or Chinese will come to dominate Switzerland?
Admittedly Switzerland is probably one of the toughest to beat in Europe due to their strategic advantages (mountains, bunkers, infrastructure pre-rigged with explosives, relatively lots of reservists). However, just look at the numbers above. If the US didn't exist, the EU wouldn't be the EU unless they had 10x the military power they have now to defend themselves.
> Note that Switzerland managed to maintain its independence in WWII even though it was completely surrounded by the Axis.
A few facts about that:
1. It did so partly through secret deals with the Nazis. Ever wonder where the stolen gold of the dead jews was stored and smelted? Right... CH
2. The world's current military and political powers aren't comparable in any way to those during the second world war.
3. The Netherlands was neutral during the first world war. In the second world ware they fought the Germans for 3 days before they lost. That's right. 3 days. The fact that a country managed to stay neutral 70+ years ago says absolutely nothing about whether they would achieve the same again now, with totally different potential enemies. And a completely different distribution of military powers.
Russia vs France: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail....
Russia vs Germany: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail....
The rest of Europe has no military power to speak of. Random example: the Dutch tank force consists of 0 tanks.
> How do you imagine that the Russians or Chinese will come to dominate Switzerland?
Admittedly Switzerland is probably one of the toughest to beat in Europe due to their strategic advantages (mountains, bunkers, infrastructure pre-rigged with explosives, relatively lots of reservists). However, just look at the numbers above. If the US didn't exist, the EU wouldn't be the EU unless they had 10x the military power they have now to defend themselves.
> Note that Switzerland managed to maintain its independence in WWII even though it was completely surrounded by the Axis.
A few facts about that:
1. It did so partly through secret deals with the Nazis. Ever wonder where the stolen gold of the dead jews was stored and smelted? Right... CH
2. The world's current military and political powers aren't comparable in any way to those during the second world war.
3. The Netherlands was neutral during the first world war. In the second world ware they fought the Germans for 3 days before they lost. That's right. 3 days. The fact that a country managed to stay neutral 70+ years ago says absolutely nothing about whether they would achieve the same again now, with totally different potential enemies. And a completely different distribution of military powers.
As a European, considering the hypothetical scenario of Russia or China steamrolling their military in to our territory I don't have much faith in how long we'd hold out. We're good at bureaucracy and social things, not at fighting.
>in the sense it would basically turn into Russia / China overnight if the US wasn't a military power protecting them
Russia doesn't have any power beyond posturing to overly sensitive Eastern Europeans and China can't project much beyond their loans (and that's if they're willing to spend the little currency reserves they have).
There's quite a bit of resistance to NATO in parts of Europe these days precisely because the US is both unneeded and overbearing.
Russia doesn't have any power beyond posturing to overly sensitive Eastern Europeans and China can't project much beyond their loans (and that's if they're willing to spend the little currency reserves they have).
There's quite a bit of resistance to NATO in parts of Europe these days precisely because the US is both unneeded and overbearing.
This is right.
But tax avoidance has also been dramatically reduced. If you want to avoid tax, pretty much the only way to do it is to either move to one of these places or find someone at a bank who will move your money for you illegally (this is pretty hard to do because the upside is often quite limited relative to the huge downside).
So money is definitely moving back within home countries, and that is far easier to control.
One point you missed is the importance of US financial control over institutions. The other plank of FATCA was the threat that the US would essentially block a bank/country out of the global financial system if they failed to cooperate. This kind of extra-territorial monitoring of the financial sector deeply annoyed everyone but..it was effective, and is a good example of a gain from US leadership of the international community (even Russia informally complies afaik).
But tax avoidance has also been dramatically reduced. If you want to avoid tax, pretty much the only way to do it is to either move to one of these places or find someone at a bank who will move your money for you illegally (this is pretty hard to do because the upside is often quite limited relative to the huge downside).
So money is definitely moving back within home countries, and that is far easier to control.
One point you missed is the importance of US financial control over institutions. The other plank of FATCA was the threat that the US would essentially block a bank/country out of the global financial system if they failed to cooperate. This kind of extra-territorial monitoring of the financial sector deeply annoyed everyone but..it was effective, and is a good example of a gain from US leadership of the international community (even Russia informally complies afaik).
> This loophole was unintentional,
Yet it's a known. And it remains in place.
Let's stop being so naive.
Yet it's a known. And it remains in place.
Let's stop being so naive.
That Guardian article is weird because it doesn't even mention federal taxes. How does a south dakota state trust help someone legally evade federal taxes?
No income, wealth or estate tax for trusts. And you don't even have to live in south dakota.
Beneficiaries of trusts pay income tax on distributions.
> This loophole was unintentional
That seems a pretty hard pill to swallow.
That seems a pretty hard pill to swallow.
Laws can have bugs too
Well put. Software is largely built of contracts; so are laws and any other interfacing agreements (as cold as that sounds).
Agreed. It's also human nature to game systems for their own advantage. The same evolutionary triggers that had us develop tools to reap rewards from the physical environment... well, we develop mental/abstract tools to reap rewards from the "intellectual" environment. There will never be a well intentioned law with enough "lock tight" wording that won't be gamed by someone out there at some point. The same, there will never be security that won't be eventually overcome at some point.
Sure. That's fair.
But I don't think that proves the above comment incorrect.
But I don't think that proves the above comment incorrect.
its a feature not a bug
And just like with software, often they are considered "features" not bugs.
The article says "Money in trusts grows tax free". Not sure that is true. I think and I could be wrong (someone please correct me) but the trust would still have to pay federal taxes at the highest rate after the first $5000.00 it makes for the tax year.
Delaware was never the most transparent place on Earth either.
FATCA + foreign jurisdiction = 0
South Dakota is also popular with full time RVers and digital nomads. Many other states you have to rent or own a house to get a license etc. But South Dakota recognizes full time travelers, so you can rent a PMB and spend 1 night at a hotel and campground to be considered a resident. Which is pretty neat. So some states like Michigan or Ohio are strict along with many others, so if you sell your house to retire to travel the nation in your RV they won't accept a mail forwarder so your only option is to burden a friend or family member to handle your mail pretending you live with them when you don't. So you are stuck having to become a resident of a new state.
Texas is also friendly to RVing, then some counties in Florida too recognize this but different counties had different views. Clay County in FL said that full time RVers aren't allowed to vote, yet a homeless person can claim they live at a park bench per federal laws. So they are making millions from RVers who barely even put ware and tear on the roads, so sounds like they found a perfect little niche from themselves in that area too, plus a valuable service when your former state you spent your entire life living in ditches you because you decided to live an alternative lifestyle.
Homeless people have the same problem, but homeless shelters can help people without any ID get one... Some argue people with $250,000 Diesel Pushers are homeless too, but it seems wasteful to get assistant from a homeless shelter when you are "homeless" by choice since other people those resources would be better spent helping, plus pretty sure you have to pick up your mail instead of them sending you a package with all your mail when you are across the country or even opening items and scanning them for you if you need access to a letter faster. I know people in RV groups prefer to call themselves "houseless" not "homeless"
Some guy works remotely for a medical marketing firm, traveling full time with his family living the life people dream of checking out all the different national parks all the way to the theme parks. While you are freezing your butt off in Ohio, they are camping at Fort Wilderness (the RV park at Disney world) but technically in the eyes of different agencies they're homeless. Some banks can give you trouble too. Didn't know homeless people could afford Disney!
So kinda interesting people who own property are treated differently than people who decide to travel full time. You could own property and never even go there and you'd be treated better than someone with no property at all for some reason. Seems very backwards, I guess society never considered people could work remotely and travel full time exploring, you are supposed to live in a house you are indebted to all your life, then maybe when you are in your 60s you can explore while you can barely walk or living off the tiny bit of social security you get, if it's even still around by time you reach that age.
Texas is also friendly to RVing, then some counties in Florida too recognize this but different counties had different views. Clay County in FL said that full time RVers aren't allowed to vote, yet a homeless person can claim they live at a park bench per federal laws. So they are making millions from RVers who barely even put ware and tear on the roads, so sounds like they found a perfect little niche from themselves in that area too, plus a valuable service when your former state you spent your entire life living in ditches you because you decided to live an alternative lifestyle.
Homeless people have the same problem, but homeless shelters can help people without any ID get one... Some argue people with $250,000 Diesel Pushers are homeless too, but it seems wasteful to get assistant from a homeless shelter when you are "homeless" by choice since other people those resources would be better spent helping, plus pretty sure you have to pick up your mail instead of them sending you a package with all your mail when you are across the country or even opening items and scanning them for you if you need access to a letter faster. I know people in RV groups prefer to call themselves "houseless" not "homeless"
Some guy works remotely for a medical marketing firm, traveling full time with his family living the life people dream of checking out all the different national parks all the way to the theme parks. While you are freezing your butt off in Ohio, they are camping at Fort Wilderness (the RV park at Disney world) but technically in the eyes of different agencies they're homeless. Some banks can give you trouble too. Didn't know homeless people could afford Disney!
So kinda interesting people who own property are treated differently than people who decide to travel full time. You could own property and never even go there and you'd be treated better than someone with no property at all for some reason. Seems very backwards, I guess society never considered people could work remotely and travel full time exploring, you are supposed to live in a house you are indebted to all your life, then maybe when you are in your 60s you can explore while you can barely walk or living off the tiny bit of social security you get, if it's even still around by time you reach that age.
That article is so one-sided it hurts. It gives few and silly examples of what trusts are actually used for, like it characterizes one by a rich woman leaving millions in care for her dog after the woman died, in order to convince the reader that trusts must be often wasteful and frivolous.
For one (among other issues) it completely ignores the destruction of family farms and businesses, no longer able to operate due to heavy tax burdens put on them by the state, simply because one of the owners has passed away and they didn't have enough cash in reserve to pay what the government deemed they owe. Mine and your politicians forced the creation of these havens because of their wanton disregard for people's hard work and effort, and I'm not going to shed any tears of there being a way for some of them to protect it.
I know, the writer alludes to a one-world dictatorship that might one day have been able to prevent this 'horrible evil' from taking hold, but we're not there yet, thankfully.
For one (among other issues) it completely ignores the destruction of family farms and businesses, no longer able to operate due to heavy tax burdens put on them by the state, simply because one of the owners has passed away and they didn't have enough cash in reserve to pay what the government deemed they owe. Mine and your politicians forced the creation of these havens because of their wanton disregard for people's hard work and effort, and I'm not going to shed any tears of there being a way for some of them to protect it.
I know, the writer alludes to a one-world dictatorship that might one day have been able to prevent this 'horrible evil' from taking hold, but we're not there yet, thankfully.
>What if their office get robbed? What if the island gets attacked?
Switzerland, WW2. There is safety in holding EVERYONE's money. Because the moment you try it, you enrage many, many, many people who have things that go boom. You can fuck with someone's politics, their car or even their wife. But once you fuck with someone's money, it's a whole new ball game.
> I don't understand how this is even legal at all
Bank fees are higher. The different "islands" that do this, really don't have a choice. WTF else are they going to do as income generation? There's only so many happy endings you can give in a day spa. It's also easier to "invest" and hide the money in tourist based enterprises on said islands. It totally makes sense to hire an interior designer for $10k an hour.
>how can they trust so few people to hide so much money
Because people don't like getting into car accidents. When you're "trusted" with something on that level, suddenly people make sure you either don't have or do have car accidents that magically attract stray bullets.
>I mean apparently there is a long list of why it's risky, and I don't understand how this is even legal at all.
Homie, avocado farmers in Mexico get kidnapped and executed because avocados are cash crops. Shit, look up "avocado stolen" or even "avocado semitruck stolen". No such thing as making bank and not having risk. Some of those truck drivers in the USA get killed. If you're going to get targeted for making money, might as well go all out.
Switzerland, WW2. There is safety in holding EVERYONE's money. Because the moment you try it, you enrage many, many, many people who have things that go boom. You can fuck with someone's politics, their car or even their wife. But once you fuck with someone's money, it's a whole new ball game.
> I don't understand how this is even legal at all
Bank fees are higher. The different "islands" that do this, really don't have a choice. WTF else are they going to do as income generation? There's only so many happy endings you can give in a day spa. It's also easier to "invest" and hide the money in tourist based enterprises on said islands. It totally makes sense to hire an interior designer for $10k an hour.
>how can they trust so few people to hide so much money
Because people don't like getting into car accidents. When you're "trusted" with something on that level, suddenly people make sure you either don't have or do have car accidents that magically attract stray bullets.
>I mean apparently there is a long list of why it's risky, and I don't understand how this is even legal at all.
Homie, avocado farmers in Mexico get kidnapped and executed because avocados are cash crops. Shit, look up "avocado stolen" or even "avocado semitruck stolen". No such thing as making bank and not having risk. Some of those truck drivers in the USA get killed. If you're going to get targeted for making money, might as well go all out.
Related: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/qz.com/663152/a-10-million-n...
Yep, even nuts get stolen!
Yep, even nuts get stolen!
Anything and everything has a "dark side". That's why these, "Gasp! Oh my goodness, I can't believe there are such vile people in this world" comments piss me off. It's a clear sign of willful ignorance and naivety. The same goes with, "I can't believe people have offshore accounts. Those terrible rich people. Adam Neumann is so terrible for setting up in his contract to get a 1.7b bailout." Bitch, what would you do in their position? Don't lie. You'd probably ask why Adam didn't go for the even $2b. There isn't a single person in this HN thread who, if they made enough to get taxed 35%+ of their income, wouldn't tax shelter the shit out of their money. I already know they lie their ass off on their taxes. Why not take a dependent or two away from your taxes, just so you can pay a more moral share of the tax burden? Claiming moral righteousness due to inability is just shoving your head in the sand.
Thanks for the article by the way. Got to admit, those folks have a great heist story. "We stole $10m worth of deez nutz!"
Ever wonder if someone does a heist and the press shorts the value, do those guys want to correct them? "Excuse me, we stole $12.4m worth of nuts. We are professionals after all, thank you very much." Not going to lie, it would piss me off if I ever did an art heist and the news says, "$10 million dollar painting stolen..." Mofo, you forgot a zero! You're making me look bad!
Thanks for the article by the way. Got to admit, those folks have a great heist story. "We stole $10m worth of deez nutz!"
Ever wonder if someone does a heist and the press shorts the value, do those guys want to correct them? "Excuse me, we stole $12.4m worth of nuts. We are professionals after all, thank you very much." Not going to lie, it would piss me off if I ever did an art heist and the news says, "$10 million dollar painting stolen..." Mofo, you forgot a zero! You're making me look bad!
If I had $1.7b I would not give a shit about the taxes I had to pay because my family would be set for generations no matter what. That's what I don't get about the super rich that obsess over taxes, the insane greed when you could be doing absolutely anything else you wanted to.
Lol, billionaires don’t spend any time thinking about this.
A special tax firm approaches them and says, “yo, give us 10 million and we’ll save you $200 million in unnecessary taxes.”
The billionaire says, “sure, I’d like to use that money to build spaceships.”
That’s the amount of thought the billionaire has to put into it. The rest is attorneys and accountants doing the work.
Did you forget that billionaires can... pay people to do things for them?
A special tax firm approaches them and says, “yo, give us 10 million and we’ll save you $200 million in unnecessary taxes.”
The billionaire says, “sure, I’d like to use that money to build spaceships.”
That’s the amount of thought the billionaire has to put into it. The rest is attorneys and accountants doing the work.
Did you forget that billionaires can... pay people to do things for them?
In Scandinavia, 30%+ tax rates are pretty much where people start, and it doesn't take too high an income to be right up at 35%. Yet those countries don't seem to be collapsing from tax evasion, and surely there must be some Scandinavian readers here.
Myself and most all my coworkers are on 40%, and obviously tax evasion is not on anyone's mind. I think it comes down to your social environment and values.
If I were born and raised in the US, with all that anti-government and anti-tax rhetoric around me, I might feel similarly to the impassioned gentleman or lady above. Yet as it stands I am happy to pay for taxes as I see great value in them, and I would generally be happy for a tax rise if justified and needed.
If I were born and raised in the US, with all that anti-government and anti-tax rhetoric around me, I might feel similarly to the impassioned gentleman or lady above. Yet as it stands I am happy to pay for taxes as I see great value in them, and I would generally be happy for a tax rise if justified and needed.
You'd think it's the small island and countries managing those bank, but it's not. The banks are from the rich and for the rich, the country is just a ruse.
Exactly. Any big bank in the world has.... suspicious... operations in these places and will let you bank through them as if it's an account you have at home.
There is a great book you should read called Treasure Islands[0]. It's equal parts fascinating and infuriating, and makes you realize the system has never been set up fairly.
Rich people have always had their own financial systems that are outside of, and one step ahead of, the regulations and rules the rest of us are subject to.
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10197857-treasure-island...
Rich people have always had their own financial systems that are outside of, and one step ahead of, the regulations and rules the rest of us are subject to.
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10197857-treasure-island...
Reminds me of a quote from the film The Usual Suspects-- "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
The system remains that way in part because a large number of people are duped into believing it is in their best interest to keep the system in place, despite the minuscule probability of actually benefiting from it.
The system remains that way in part because a large number of people are duped into believing it is in their best interest to keep the system in place, despite the minuscule probability of actually benefiting from it.
The book shows that a lot of the people who sustain that system (by writing the laws we are all subject to, but leaving convenient loopholes in them) do actually benefit quite a bit.
> why countries are letting those small, insignificant islands and countries manage all this wealth
Some of the tax havens like Jersey, Isle of Man are British territories, Curacao is territory of Netherlands.
The big countries know what goes on on their little islands they just choose to ignore it for obvious reasons.
Treasure Islands is a great book if you want to learn more about this.
Some of the tax havens like Jersey, Isle of Man are British territories, Curacao is territory of Netherlands.
The big countries know what goes on on their little islands they just choose to ignore it for obvious reasons.
Treasure Islands is a great book if you want to learn more about this.
Many tax havens are actually quite stable and have very reliable banking systems. Canada encourages "snow washing" with Limited Partnerships. Canada's banks are quite good and the corporate legislation allows a degree of anonymity. This structure has no obligation to file taxes in Canada. The partners in the structure have to pay taxes however if the partner is not a Canadian entity that obligation is in some other jurisdiction.
https://projects.thestar.com/panama-papers/canada-is-the-wor...
https://projects.thestar.com/panama-papers/canada-is-the-wor...
But Canada shares banking data with the IRS.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fatca-tax-us-canada-1.53539...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fatca-tax-us-canada-1.53539...
Yes, Canadian tax residents have serious obligations, as do US citizens (no matter where they live)!
LPs on the other hand, do not _if_ there is no economic activity in Canada and there's a tax treaty at play with the founding partner jurisdiction. Canada doesn't have the authority to tax foreign owned businesses unless they participate in the Canadian economy.
Eg: Your international entities can route money through a Canadian LP that is owned by your Barbados corporation. In this scenario there's no Canadian tax obligation and the money trail becomes harder to follow due to Canada's privacy laws (your company name might not be on your LP documentation). Your company does, of course, have to settle up the tax obligation with Barbados.
LPs on the other hand, do not _if_ there is no economic activity in Canada and there's a tax treaty at play with the founding partner jurisdiction. Canada doesn't have the authority to tax foreign owned businesses unless they participate in the Canadian economy.
Eg: Your international entities can route money through a Canadian LP that is owned by your Barbados corporation. In this scenario there's no Canadian tax obligation and the money trail becomes harder to follow due to Canada's privacy laws (your company name might not be on your LP documentation). Your company does, of course, have to settle up the tax obligation with Barbados.
Only for Americans.
You’re curious about them from the perspective of a normal citizen
Politicians don’t know and have no desire to know, if you can’t tell by their willfully ignoring official political processes (regardless of whether one agrees with the motivation or not, to simply say you’re going to ignore it as folks like Sen. Graham have is nuts).
If they did they could be held accountable. Plausible deniability is a key legal position.
So politically zero fucks are given.
I mean we know more than one President was pals with a man the elite knew to be a statutory rapist. They don’t give a shit about human lives themselves.
You think they give a shit about ephemeral shit like money when they don’t worry about that?
The financial system has us mining bitcoin: ephemeral bullshit other people live big on.
How this forum can be so smart and so clueless is beyond me.
Politicians don’t know and have no desire to know, if you can’t tell by their willfully ignoring official political processes (regardless of whether one agrees with the motivation or not, to simply say you’re going to ignore it as folks like Sen. Graham have is nuts).
If they did they could be held accountable. Plausible deniability is a key legal position.
So politically zero fucks are given.
I mean we know more than one President was pals with a man the elite knew to be a statutory rapist. They don’t give a shit about human lives themselves.
You think they give a shit about ephemeral shit like money when they don’t worry about that?
The financial system has us mining bitcoin: ephemeral bullshit other people live big on.
How this forum can be so smart and so clueless is beyond me.
Using a throwaway for obvious reasons.
I have a fair bit of insight into this industry, both from friends, acquaintances, and family who use a variety of offshore structures to manage their wealth and from my own dealings (the company I founded and currently manage is offshored for tax and legal purposes).
What people don’t realise is that aside from a couple outliers offshore jurisdictions aren’t that shady at all and the major ones are usually under the protection and sometimes outright control of much larger and much more influential jurisdictions, with the United Kingdom being the leader here. If tax avoidance was as simple as just starting a business in a zero or low tax jurisdictions we would see a lot more of this kind of business being done in Africa (with the notable exception of Seychelles today) than the Caribbean overseas territories, but mature legal frameworks and more importantly reliable governments are incredibly important to both small time players who may stash some cash offshore as savings and large multinationals. If anything shady (civil unrest, wealth confiscation etc.) were to go down in the British Virgin Islands for example the United Kingdom has a nuclear option (as BVI is for all intents and purposes a Crown colony) to unseat the sitting government and bring order, which is incredibly valuable as an insurance policy.
Yes, it is possible to incorporate offshore corporations in less-reputable jurisdictions like Vanuatu or Seychelles, but doing business with these vehicles is next to impossible because no reputable bank in Singapore, Hong Kong, or Switzerland is going to want to have you as a customer if they don’t already know you due to compliance reasons. Without a bank account your ability to funnel and store money in these opaque conduits becomes rather difficult and there really isn’t any point any longer. Of course, there are small shady banks in certain jurisdictions (notably those that aren’t under indirect British control) that will take you on as a client, but then you run into the risk of them running away with your money or defaulting.
The money itself isn’t really managed by or from these island nations/colonies either, and in the cases where there are nominee directors the beneficial owner will usually have a power of attorney as well as an undated resignation letter from the nominee director which effectively gives them wherever they are total control of the company.
What is interesting is that crypto is changing all of this due it being completely outside the severely regulated financial sector, opening up a ton of opportunity for small island nations to compete on tax efficiency without being subject to the quite frankly draconian rules that usually places them on US/EU/OECD blacklists which can create severe consequences for the economies of said nations through sanctions.
Very interesting times indeed, and I think we will see more and more companies (particularly tech companies) being offshored than before in the next few years.
I have a fair bit of insight into this industry, both from friends, acquaintances, and family who use a variety of offshore structures to manage their wealth and from my own dealings (the company I founded and currently manage is offshored for tax and legal purposes).
What people don’t realise is that aside from a couple outliers offshore jurisdictions aren’t that shady at all and the major ones are usually under the protection and sometimes outright control of much larger and much more influential jurisdictions, with the United Kingdom being the leader here. If tax avoidance was as simple as just starting a business in a zero or low tax jurisdictions we would see a lot more of this kind of business being done in Africa (with the notable exception of Seychelles today) than the Caribbean overseas territories, but mature legal frameworks and more importantly reliable governments are incredibly important to both small time players who may stash some cash offshore as savings and large multinationals. If anything shady (civil unrest, wealth confiscation etc.) were to go down in the British Virgin Islands for example the United Kingdom has a nuclear option (as BVI is for all intents and purposes a Crown colony) to unseat the sitting government and bring order, which is incredibly valuable as an insurance policy.
Yes, it is possible to incorporate offshore corporations in less-reputable jurisdictions like Vanuatu or Seychelles, but doing business with these vehicles is next to impossible because no reputable bank in Singapore, Hong Kong, or Switzerland is going to want to have you as a customer if they don’t already know you due to compliance reasons. Without a bank account your ability to funnel and store money in these opaque conduits becomes rather difficult and there really isn’t any point any longer. Of course, there are small shady banks in certain jurisdictions (notably those that aren’t under indirect British control) that will take you on as a client, but then you run into the risk of them running away with your money or defaulting.
The money itself isn’t really managed by or from these island nations/colonies either, and in the cases where there are nominee directors the beneficial owner will usually have a power of attorney as well as an undated resignation letter from the nominee director which effectively gives them wherever they are total control of the company.
What is interesting is that crypto is changing all of this due it being completely outside the severely regulated financial sector, opening up a ton of opportunity for small island nations to compete on tax efficiency without being subject to the quite frankly draconian rules that usually places them on US/EU/OECD blacklists which can create severe consequences for the economies of said nations through sanctions.
Very interesting times indeed, and I think we will see more and more companies (particularly tech companies) being offshored than before in the next few years.
> ...the United Kingdom being the leader here.
Having lived in the UK, I'm convinced that the real reason for Brexit is to preserve these offshore tax havens from any meddling by EU regulations.
It's not an accident that Brexit suddenly became crucially important to the Conservative Party only when the EU developed a new interest in unified financial regulations after all the turmoil of 2008-2011.
Having lived in the UK, I'm convinced that the real reason for Brexit is to preserve these offshore tax havens from any meddling by EU regulations.
It's not an accident that Brexit suddenly became crucially important to the Conservative Party only when the EU developed a new interest in unified financial regulations after all the turmoil of 2008-2011.
The EU has plenty of tax heavens and satellite states. Some exist to serve the old rich (luxembourg, monaco) and others chose that path because, unless you are already a rich country, capital in EU is sparse, which further leads to brain drain. That's how countries like ireland and cyprus manage to recover faster than others.
I can't say if the latest regulations have really made an impact. They have surely made banking in EU a lot more bureaucratic and a lot more expensive for a small business.
I can't say if the latest regulations have really made an impact. They have surely made banking in EU a lot more bureaucratic and a lot more expensive for a small business.
The EU has an unbelievable number of tax havens. It is one of the last places in the developed world where you can genuinely clean dirty money with ease.
The last Commission President was literally the ringleader for tax theft: he was FM/PM of Luxembourg, and actively lobbied companies to domicile there, funnel revenue through Luxembourg (i.e. structuring for tax avoidance alone), and personally negotiated the 1% corporation tax deals.
...it always amazes me how little people actually understand about the EU.
Btw, the main issue for the Conservatives has been their inability to force the overseas territories to do things (what they actually think about tax havens is irrelevant now, events have moved on).
The last Commission President was literally the ringleader for tax theft: he was FM/PM of Luxembourg, and actively lobbied companies to domicile there, funnel revenue through Luxembourg (i.e. structuring for tax avoidance alone), and personally negotiated the 1% corporation tax deals.
...it always amazes me how little people actually understand about the EU.
Btw, the main issue for the Conservatives has been their inability to force the overseas territories to do things (what they actually think about tax havens is irrelevant now, events have moved on).
Juncker made for a convenient political foil in many ways, but ultimately EU policy is made by national leaders in the European Council. The shady practices of Luxembourg and Cyprus were previously of no interest to the national leaders who had bigger fish to fry.
This has changed though, as certain European parties' voters have become irate about international tax evasion. For center-left PMs, stomping down on countries like Cyprus isn't going to lose them any votes and increasingly looks like a political win.
For Britain, the conundrum is that there's so much British money in the "nearshore" tax havens of Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Whereas Luxembourg mostly cut sweetheart deals for corporations and Cyprus mostly dealt with non-EU foreigners who don't get to vote anyway, cleaning up the British tax havens would threaten the hidden wealth of Conservative voters directly.
This has changed though, as certain European parties' voters have become irate about international tax evasion. For center-left PMs, stomping down on countries like Cyprus isn't going to lose them any votes and increasingly looks like a political win.
For Britain, the conundrum is that there's so much British money in the "nearshore" tax havens of Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Whereas Luxembourg mostly cut sweetheart deals for corporations and Cyprus mostly dealt with non-EU foreigners who don't get to vote anyway, cleaning up the British tax havens would threaten the hidden wealth of Conservative voters directly.
This isn't the case. All the main financial institutions in the Channel Islands and IoM are global so they KYC properly. More to the point though: the information-sharing is pretty much gold standard (bank accounts have been shared for a while but now beneficial ownership of companies is shared too).
The only way to avoid tax is to permanently move there. And, if you are familiar with either of those locations, you should know that the punishment fits the crime.
Also: it is far bigger than Luxembourg and Cyprus. Malta is basically a haven for financial fraud. Ireland is basically a tax haven now. And basically all of the East European nations are targets given the weak controls of their financial institutions (and Denmark as it turned out).
The only way to avoid tax is to permanently move there. And, if you are familiar with either of those locations, you should know that the punishment fits the crime.
Also: it is far bigger than Luxembourg and Cyprus. Malta is basically a haven for financial fraud. Ireland is basically a tax haven now. And basically all of the East European nations are targets given the weak controls of their financial institutions (and Denmark as it turned out).
Netherland has Curacao as its tax haven even when its part of the EU.
[deleted]
> tax and legal purposes
This may be terribly naive, but doesn't that make the business de-facto illegal? What kind of legitimate business deserves to buck paying into the systems that support them? As a default I want to disagree, but I would like to know what business needs to operate outside of these constraints.
Surely the businesses utilizing the favours of banks like Cayman are not being operated within tyrannical countries (which is the first and only reasoning I can see for operating in the manor you prescribed).
The very fact that they operate this way seems shady to me.
This may be terribly naive, but doesn't that make the business de-facto illegal? What kind of legitimate business deserves to buck paying into the systems that support them? As a default I want to disagree, but I would like to know what business needs to operate outside of these constraints.
Surely the businesses utilizing the favours of banks like Cayman are not being operated within tyrannical countries (which is the first and only reasoning I can see for operating in the manor you prescribed).
The very fact that they operate this way seems shady to me.
I still can’t believe it’s legal to move from SF to Texas if you were born and raised in SF. You owe the good people of San Francisco repayment for raising and nurturing you. Leaving after all that education and local services is a corrupt tax-dodge into a state without income tax.
I'm not American, and most people aren't. You might need to tailor your metaphor.
That said, I disagree. Context matters. The comment above isn't talking about moving a business, it's only talking about operating with as little fiscal impunity as possible. Or at least it reads that way—which is why I was asking for more input.
That said, I disagree. Context matters. The comment above isn't talking about moving a business, it's only talking about operating with as little fiscal impunity as possible. Or at least it reads that way—which is why I was asking for more input.
There’s legality and morality. Moving all my wealth to Cayman (or Texas) may be 100% legal but I thought we were debating ethics. All of these HNers decamping from NYC and SF to Florida and Texas are horrible awful people depriving the local governments of California and New York their deserved taxes!
You should probably look further into the brain drain which is a global theme with complex ethics. Independent people moving are not really bad or necessarily hurting a state they leave as they send remittances, move back to retire, etc. The overall affect of states incentivizing bulk drains can be brutal though as can the resulting investment decisions of a state that knows it's brightest will be drained. At any rate, in the big scheme of things don't worry about NY and SF, they (and even their own domestic victims) are not victims of drain on average.
When you say "deserved taxes", what precisely is the reasoning behind this deservedness?
it seems to me that there's no reasonable way to lay claim to the work product of another person without being a total jerk... maybe i'm mistaken.
it seems to me that there's no reasonable way to lay claim to the work product of another person without being a total jerk... maybe i'm mistaken.
It's mind blowing to me that people get angry about moving wealth to a lower tax country like Cayman, but are totally milquetoast about moving someplace within the same country that has the same effect of lowering one's effective taxation.
If you are worked up about this Cayman thing, then you should be apoplectic if your neighbor moves to Texas or Florida. What horrible, disgusting people who are leaving their former communities to rot! They raised taxes on the rich in order to transfer more wealth to the community, and then the rich up and leave! Such completely selfish actions are galling and it fills me with anger, as it should any self-respecting person. We need the government to track where people live each day, and then make them pay their taxes proportional to where they lived for the rest of their lives. It's only fair to the communities that protected and nurtured them.
We need to outlaw each and every tax dodge. Clipping coupons deprives the state of their sales tax, as the total price is on goods is lowered which reduces the total tax bill, which is why I'm against coupons. How long will we allow this madness to continue?
If you are worked up about this Cayman thing, then you should be apoplectic if your neighbor moves to Texas or Florida. What horrible, disgusting people who are leaving their former communities to rot! They raised taxes on the rich in order to transfer more wealth to the community, and then the rich up and leave! Such completely selfish actions are galling and it fills me with anger, as it should any self-respecting person. We need the government to track where people live each day, and then make them pay their taxes proportional to where they lived for the rest of their lives. It's only fair to the communities that protected and nurtured them.
We need to outlaw each and every tax dodge. Clipping coupons deprives the state of their sales tax, as the total price is on goods is lowered which reduces the total tax bill, which is why I'm against coupons. How long will we allow this madness to continue?
Seriously having difficulty detecting whether this is sarcasm, so forgive me if I am taking some bait...
I'm not sure that I want the government to be responsible for doling out penalties for working (e.g. taxing somebody's productive efforts). I think it would be better if localities had sales taxes only. Penalizing people for visiting/living in a location (by taxing them proportionally for the rest of their lives) seems absurd, empowers a police state, and frightens me for the possible negative externalities of such a system.
Consider the case of a family that was persecuted out of a town (e.g. chased out by bigots)... should each of these individuals be penalized for the rest of their lives for having spent some amount of time "living" in that place?
Surely, that's not a good solution.
I'm not sure that I want the government to be responsible for doling out penalties for working (e.g. taxing somebody's productive efforts). I think it would be better if localities had sales taxes only. Penalizing people for visiting/living in a location (by taxing them proportionally for the rest of their lives) seems absurd, empowers a police state, and frightens me for the possible negative externalities of such a system.
Consider the case of a family that was persecuted out of a town (e.g. chased out by bigots)... should each of these individuals be penalized for the rest of their lives for having spent some amount of time "living" in that place?
Surely, that's not a good solution.
LOL maybe those communities should adopt some sane taxing policies instead of going all in on Nimbyism and "Imma take all your stuff because I know better how to dole it out".
Well, it’s called competition and I think it is a healthy feedback force.
[deleted]
Texas receives more federal dollars than it contributes. The real tax dodge is perpetrated by state governments that manipulate the federal budget to their benefit.
That's a lie. Texas pays more in federal taxes than it receives.
Thats not a lie, Texas breaks even some years and not on others. The surrounding states are wildly dependent on federal money at the same time they insult the people of the states that contribute to their own upkeep.
Terrible analogy.
[deleted]
> I still can’t believe it’s legal to move from SF to Texas if you were born and raised in SF. You owe the good people of San Francisco repayment for raising and nurturing you. Leaving after all that education and local services is a corrupt tax-dodge into a state without income tax.
Lol you again. How many times must you hear this to understand: Total freedom implies freedom of movement. You do not own people. You never will. You have no moral basis.
Lol you again. How many times must you hear this to understand: Total freedom implies freedom of movement. You do not own people. You never will. You have no moral basis.
pretty sure OP was sarcastically trying to highlight the possibility that some premises may not be safe to leave unexamined. though tone is much more something I'd expect to see on Reddit than HN, it's a valid criticism.
No. He has repeatedly made the same comment (or "meme", "canard"). It is not insightful commentary; it is not much more beyond propaganda at this point.
California has made horrible financial decisions for over a decade. To pretend it is somehow moral to trap people and their wealth to those decisions is complete insanity. Also it won't work, to point out the obvious.
California has made horrible financial decisions for over a decade. To pretend it is somehow moral to trap people and their wealth to those decisions is complete insanity. Also it won't work, to point out the obvious.
Pleased to see the "no borders" argument being made, but the more important one is to the south of California.
>This may be terribly naive, but doesn't that make the business de-facto illegal? What kind of legitimate business deserves to buck paying into the systems that support them? As a default I want to disagree, but I would like to know what business needs to operate outside of these constraints.
These constraints that you speak of are entirely arbitrary (geographical delineation) and were designed for a time before the internet. I would instead ask the question why Western governments are refusing to get with the changing tides and reform their archaic taxation codes to account for an increasingly globalised economy.
>Surely the businesses utilizing the favours of banks like Cayman are not being operated within tyrannical countries (which is the first and only reasoning I can see for operating in the manor you prescribed).
Not at all. There certainly exists a subgroup of individuals, companies, and institutions that operate in jurisdictions where there is a huge amount of uncertainty, but there is also a very large contingent that offshores their business to reduce regulatory burden and reduce tax liabilities, many of whom are individuals and companies that you and I have heard of. I doubt they will be using Cayman National Bank though, it is more likely that they will be using banks that you and I have also heard of like Barclays or DBS.
These constraints that you speak of are entirely arbitrary (geographical delineation) and were designed for a time before the internet. I would instead ask the question why Western governments are refusing to get with the changing tides and reform their archaic taxation codes to account for an increasingly globalised economy.
>Surely the businesses utilizing the favours of banks like Cayman are not being operated within tyrannical countries (which is the first and only reasoning I can see for operating in the manor you prescribed).
Not at all. There certainly exists a subgroup of individuals, companies, and institutions that operate in jurisdictions where there is a huge amount of uncertainty, but there is also a very large contingent that offshores their business to reduce regulatory burden and reduce tax liabilities, many of whom are individuals and companies that you and I have heard of. I doubt they will be using Cayman National Bank though, it is more likely that they will be using banks that you and I have also heard of like Barclays or DBS.
I'm sorry but that just sounds absurdly reductive to me. It makes a gross assumption that people are incapable of keeping their government in check.
Perhaps, in spite of my own cynicism, I believe people are capable of deciding how they want their societies to run (also in spite of our hiccups here in the Western world).
So again: why do such businesses deserve to operate with such impunity? A natural function of business is risk. Subverting reasonable social good is an active harm that is reasonable given the circumstances (like an ambulance or fire truck asserting the right of way on a city street), but I fail to see why that should apply to any and all business.
I'll be happy to be convinced otherwise—but I doubt I will be.
I know you're speaking out under the condition of anonymity, so I won't ask which business you're operating or employed by but I am immensely curious about which industry you're representing. It would help much in understanding your perspective.
Perhaps, in spite of my own cynicism, I believe people are capable of deciding how they want their societies to run (also in spite of our hiccups here in the Western world).
So again: why do such businesses deserve to operate with such impunity? A natural function of business is risk. Subverting reasonable social good is an active harm that is reasonable given the circumstances (like an ambulance or fire truck asserting the right of way on a city street), but I fail to see why that should apply to any and all business.
I'll be happy to be convinced otherwise—but I doubt I will be.
I know you're speaking out under the condition of anonymity, so I won't ask which business you're operating or employed by but I am immensely curious about which industry you're representing. It would help much in understanding your perspective.
I'm going to be honest. As an American it feels like my government is not in check. Not at all. They are failing to represent the wishes of constituents.
I too feel like the person you replied to. Why can't our goverment get with the times and create infrastructure to support the new global economy.
I too feel like the person you replied to. Why can't our goverment get with the times and create infrastructure to support the new global economy.
>It makes a gross assumption that people are incapable of keeping their government in check.
There is a difference between keeping a government in check, and ensuring governance stays relevant. Western democracy usually ensures the former, but is not very good on the latter.
>Subverting reasonable social good is an active harm that is reasonable given the circumstances (like an ambulance or fire truck asserting the right of way on a city street), but I fail to see why that should apply to any and all business.
This is more of a political argument than anything else, and I'm not too keen on going into my political views on this matter (although I'm sure it is not too difficult to infer them from my posts). What I will say however is that I think you are conferring an arbitrary civic duty on corporations, with the dutiful obligations of which being up for a significant amount of interpretation across societies and jurisdictions.
There is a difference between keeping a government in check, and ensuring governance stays relevant. Western democracy usually ensures the former, but is not very good on the latter.
>Subverting reasonable social good is an active harm that is reasonable given the circumstances (like an ambulance or fire truck asserting the right of way on a city street), but I fail to see why that should apply to any and all business.
This is more of a political argument than anything else, and I'm not too keen on going into my political views on this matter (although I'm sure it is not too difficult to infer them from my posts). What I will say however is that I think you are conferring an arbitrary civic duty on corporations, with the dutiful obligations of which being up for a significant amount of interpretation across societies and jurisdictions.
Yeah. I don’t think we can avoid the breach into politics on this subject, though, since it seems inherently political and I can tell we have some fundamental philosophical differences!
Anyway I appreciate the thoughtful responses regardless.
Anyway I appreciate the thoughtful responses regardless.
>I would instead ask the question why Western governments are refusing to get with the changing tides and reform their archaic taxation codes to account for an increasingly globalised economy.
Systemic corruption, governments are infested with corporate interests and tax avoiders.
Attempting to even the playing field would expose massive corruption.
Systemic corruption, governments are infested with corporate interests and tax avoiders.
Attempting to even the playing field would expose massive corruption.
> get with the changing tides and reform their archaic taxation codes to account for an increasingly globalised economy.
they don't know how.
they don't know how.
"the company I founded and currently manage is offshored for tax and legal purposes"
Simply curious, how do you feel about the ethics of this? Is it to reduce the tax burden in your company's home country?
Simply curious, how do you feel about the ethics of this? Is it to reduce the tax burden in your company's home country?
There are two dimensions here, one is the tax liability and the second is regulatory compliance.
Yes, the tax liability is significantly reduced when using offshore structures and I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing especially since an ultra-low corporate tax rate makes it possible to offer our customers services at a lower price than otherwise - I see this as a good thing.
The second is that regulatory compliance is much, much, much easier especially when working in industries like finance, insurance, or crypto. The flexibility and clarity of the regulatory climate in offshore jurisdictions is a huge advantage as it makes it possible for us to focus on doing business rather than narrowly tiptoeing an arbitrary and complex regulatory line as is the case in "home" jurisdictions like the US or the EU. This is further compounded when you have a distributed workforce located in various jurisdictions (which sometimes changes on a week-to-week basis).
Yes, the tax liability is significantly reduced when using offshore structures and I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing especially since an ultra-low corporate tax rate makes it possible to offer our customers services at a lower price than otherwise - I see this as a good thing.
The second is that regulatory compliance is much, much, much easier especially when working in industries like finance, insurance, or crypto. The flexibility and clarity of the regulatory climate in offshore jurisdictions is a huge advantage as it makes it possible for us to focus on doing business rather than narrowly tiptoeing an arbitrary and complex regulatory line as is the case in "home" jurisdictions like the US or the EU. This is further compounded when you have a distributed workforce located in various jurisdictions (which sometimes changes on a week-to-week basis).
> an ultra-low corporate tax rate makes it possible to offer our customers services at a lower price than otherwise - I see this as a good thing.
The claim that you’re transparently passing the savings of tax avoidance onto consumers rather than charging market-rate and pocketing the difference is both unlikely and unprovable. And even if you were charging less, this would essentially amount to an unfair, extra-legal competitive advantage.
The claim that you’re transparently passing the savings of tax avoidance onto consumers rather than charging market-rate and pocketing the difference is both unlikely and unprovable. And even if you were charging less, this would essentially amount to an unfair, extra-legal competitive advantage.
> ...unfair, extra-legal competitive advantage.
It is not unfair, and it is not extra-legal. Anyone can offshore their company and in some cases it can take less than an day (incorporating an LLP in the UK takes a couple of hours) with virtually zero barriers of entry, all fully compliant with the relevant legislation.
If legal regulatory arbitrage (through tax havens) is unfair, then the corollary is that any kind of business profit arising from utilising uncommon knowledge is unfair. I think this position is untenable.
It is not unfair, and it is not extra-legal. Anyone can offshore their company and in some cases it can take less than an day (incorporating an LLP in the UK takes a couple of hours) with virtually zero barriers of entry, all fully compliant with the relevant legislation.
If legal regulatory arbitrage (through tax havens) is unfair, then the corollary is that any kind of business profit arising from utilising uncommon knowledge is unfair. I think this position is untenable.
I thought most OECD countries have rules for companies being tax liable at their "effective place of management" and "arms length" etc principles to prevent funneling money to tax havens. Or is it just the correct loopholes you need to know about to ignore all of this?
It's very much a big proxy war between big economies. Currently the countries benefit from tax havens where growth is the highest (because these investment/offshore vehicles/vessels are low tax and the yields are reinvested, and the tax is reaped by the country where it gets invested; even if the profit was originally from a different country - but it's transferred to the tax haven via various schemes, like the intellectual property royalty payments and so on.)
https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/717/
https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/717/
> If legal regulatory arbitrage (through tax havens) is unfair, then the corollary is that any kind of business profit arising from utilising uncommon knowledge is unfair.
This syllogism is so unsound that I’m not sure how to respond. I don’t think I’m arguing that, and I don’t think that using corporate tax havens is merely “using uncommon knowledge.”
This syllogism is so unsound that I’m not sure how to respond. I don’t think I’m arguing that, and I don’t think that using corporate tax havens is merely “using uncommon knowledge.”
> It is not unfair, and it is not extra-legal
Then why are you using a pseudonym?
Then why are you using a pseudonym?
"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" isn't a reasonable position to hold, and your statement basically amounts to it. There's plenty of reasons to want to stay anonymous when talking about business such as this.
To clarify, I don't necessarily agree with his position, but I disagree with your proposition that he is using a pseudonym for that reason.
To clarify, I don't necessarily agree with his position, but I disagree with your proposition that he is using a pseudonym for that reason.
If such a scheme were the only thing allowing you to make a profit, would you appreciate this guy drawing attention to it? In fact, you could protect your operation by submitting numerous tips to tax agencies across the world, causing his business to fail due to the immense cost of litigating such complex cases, even though he would be cleared if he could afford the defense. Everyone gets the right message: the public hears that tax havens "don't work", whistleblowers learn to keep quiet, regulators notch up another win, and the truly powerful get to continue dodging taxes.
> makes it possible for us to focus on doing business rather than narrowly tiptoeing an arbitrary and complex regulatory line
This can be solved by simply operating well within the legal line. If you’re operating so close to the border of what’s illegal that you’re “tiptoeing the line” then maybe that is the root problem.
I’ve been in several businesses and not once ever had to stop and ask myself “is what I’m doing technically legal?”
This can be solved by simply operating well within the legal line. If you’re operating so close to the border of what’s illegal that you’re “tiptoeing the line” then maybe that is the root problem.
I’ve been in several businesses and not once ever had to stop and ask myself “is what I’m doing technically legal?”
> quite frankly draconian rules that usually places them on US/EU/OECD blacklists
Assuming ethics is not a concern
Assuming ethics is not a concern
I think the true moral crime here is preventing sovereign nations (using bullying tactics no less) who lack natural resources and other income-generating resources from offering convenient and flexible regulatory climates to business who need it. Singapore and Hong Kong were two countries that did this for decades and look where they are now - why shouldn't Vanuatu or Seychelles be offered the same opportunity?
SG is strategically located in Asia and has taken advantage of that.
HK was/is an entreport to China. Before 1949, it was not as important as Shanghai. After 1949, it was where a lot of southern Chinese escaped and became a manufacturing/cheap labor hub, while also taking advantage of British civil service practices.
Post China's economic changes, HK became the bridge between the world and China's economy, plus the place for China's new rich to park their money "safely".
Today, it is losing/has lost that advantage, because China's corruption has taken hold of the government, and as a result, the "rule of law".
HK was/is an entreport to China. Before 1949, it was not as important as Shanghai. After 1949, it was where a lot of southern Chinese escaped and became a manufacturing/cheap labor hub, while also taking advantage of British civil service practices.
Post China's economic changes, HK became the bridge between the world and China's economy, plus the place for China's new rich to park their money "safely".
Today, it is losing/has lost that advantage, because China's corruption has taken hold of the government, and as a result, the "rule of law".
That's a really crafty way of saying "they did it, so I should be able to do it"
Sure OK, but I want my "moral right" to a social democracy of the Nordic style. How come the Swedes and Norwegians can have a functioning socially responsible government but the UK gets a bunch of incompetent capitalists?
You're still an EU citizen, you have a legal right to take advantage of the Swedish social democracy.
You have to be carful about letting just anyone waltz up and become a pay to play citizen - or you end up like Malta.
Who's ethics? Really. Who's.
Ethics isn't a black and white thing and people feel differently globally about whats ethical.
Take copyright. That's a western thing, but personally I think we can do without. I like China's ethics on copyright even though most westerners would disagree.
Ethics isn't a black and white thing and people feel differently globally about whats ethical.
Take copyright. That's a western thing, but personally I think we can do without. I like China's ethics on copyright even though most westerners would disagree.
What ethics? China has nominally had standard, WTO-compatible copyright protections for decades. The problem is inconsistent and often corrupt enforcement.
The sine qua non of any legal system is consistent application of the law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law If you don't have the Rule of Law, you don't have much of anything.
Western companies would have you think that China systematically ignores copyright, patent, and trademark protections, sort of like that there's a quasi-legal norm of simply ignoring those protections. But that's a strategically misleading characterization designed for Western audiences.
The sine qua non of any legal system is consistent application of the law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law If you don't have the Rule of Law, you don't have much of anything.
Western companies would have you think that China systematically ignores copyright, patent, and trademark protections, sort of like that there's a quasi-legal norm of simply ignoring those protections. But that's a strategically misleading characterization designed for Western audiences.
US government would have you think that China...
The US did exactly the same thing to the UK back in the early 20th century. All developing economies do. Protecting "Intellectual Property Rights" are only relevant to a nation's economy when those rights have value in that economy.
Nations that are in the "developing" state are generally the destination of outsourced manufacturing from developed states. They are arbitraging their lower costs of labor, less developed regulatory environment ("light touch", "economic development zones") and lower standards for environmental and other protections.
China is starting to enforce IPR because it now has the developed capacity to create IP.
The US did exactly the same thing to the UK back in the early 20th century. All developing economies do. Protecting "Intellectual Property Rights" are only relevant to a nation's economy when those rights have value in that economy.
Nations that are in the "developing" state are generally the destination of outsourced manufacturing from developed states. They are arbitraging their lower costs of labor, less developed regulatory environment ("light touch", "economic development zones") and lower standards for environmental and other protections.
China is starting to enforce IPR because it now has the developed capacity to create IP.
In most cases, setting up your business there saves you no tax. It only saves you tax if you are a resident or if you don't tell the govt where you are a tax resident that you have a business there (not telling your govt is tremendously risky given that most of this information is now reported).
The main reason businesses are set up there is the legal benefits. Not just a stable legal environment but also because it is far easier to deal with international investors (most countries withhold tax from foreign investors at source, you can claim it back but that hits your ROI).
The main reason businesses are set up there is the legal benefits. Not just a stable legal environment but also because it is far easier to deal with international investors (most countries withhold tax from foreign investors at source, you can claim it back but that hits your ROI).
Depends on the country. Some countries have treaties letting your home corporation receive dividends from its foreign affiliate tax-free. Canada allows this kind of thing.
Then there's how to wash your Canadian income into this foreign operation...
There was a big case of a uranium mining company in Canada that sold options that effectively forced it to forever sell its product to its recently setup Swiss subsidiary at the "glut" price. If the price went up, all the profit would go to the Swiss subsidiary. If the price stayed low, they'd just liquidate the subsidiary.
Voila.
Then there's how to wash your Canadian income into this foreign operation...
There was a big case of a uranium mining company in Canada that sold options that effectively forced it to forever sell its product to its recently setup Swiss subsidiary at the "glut" price. If the price went up, all the profit would go to the Swiss subsidiary. If the price stayed low, they'd just liquidate the subsidiary.
Voila.
> Simply curious, how do you feel about the ethics of this?
This seems like standard practice for many companies who operate offices in foreign countries. It is easier (compliance) and cheaper (compliance and taxes) to have foreign subsidiaries.
What ethical violations are you envisioning?
This seems like standard practice for many companies who operate offices in foreign countries. It is easier (compliance) and cheaper (compliance and taxes) to have foreign subsidiaries.
What ethical violations are you envisioning?
If you want to talk ethics you should probably start at the government. Ethics should start with the higher level. The average business owner/s trying to LEGALLY minimize their tax is hardly unethical comparatively to the sovereign that allows it in a first place. If we are talking guys like Google then yes. Those just buy governments.
Note that in his write-up of how the hack was accomplished (someone pasted a link in another comment) the hacker specifically mentions his attack was on Cayman National Bank of the Isle of Man. From cursory research it appears to be based there, not in the Cayman Islands.
The isle of Man is an odd place, curiously not part of the UK, linked to a lot of financial shenanigans.
e.g. A disproportionate number of private jets are imported into Europe via The Isle of Man for tax reasons. (Link: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/05/isle-of-man-...)
For those interested in this subject, I can't recommend the documentary "The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire" [1] highly enough. The guy who behind it not only did an excellent job, but did it for a tiny fraction of what a bigger studio would have spent for a much more inferior end result.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8
* her -- she refers to herself as a girl multiple times in the writeup
edit: or possibly they/them -- I'm seeing conflicting info circulating around
edit: or possibly they/them -- I'm seeing conflicting info circulating around
> Although I will always be curious why countries are letting those small, insignificant islands and countries manage all this wealth
This is easy, after all hiding cash is needed by everybody. And when it comes to finance , there are no countries only financial interest. Of course nothing bad will happen to these financial heavens, because they are protected by the richest and most powerful people and organisations.
"The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire"[1] gives a good overview of how this started.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8
This is easy, after all hiding cash is needed by everybody. And when it comes to finance , there are no countries only financial interest. Of course nothing bad will happen to these financial heavens, because they are protected by the richest and most powerful people and organisations.
"The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire"[1] gives a good overview of how this started.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8
> I don't understand how this is even legal at all.
A lot of the process is not legal. That's why it is a scandal when they find this kind of information. But the existence of this type of service is practically guaranteed for the same reason: a lot of the money in these accounts was acquired in shady, if not totally ilegal ways. Even if countries make it completely illegal, there will be a lot of clients for offshore accounts. You can think of this as a modern version of pirates hiding their illegal treasures in some Caribbean island.
A lot of the process is not legal. That's why it is a scandal when they find this kind of information. But the existence of this type of service is practically guaranteed for the same reason: a lot of the money in these accounts was acquired in shady, if not totally ilegal ways. Even if countries make it completely illegal, there will be a lot of clients for offshore accounts. You can think of this as a modern version of pirates hiding their illegal treasures in some Caribbean island.
>why countries are letting those small, insignificant islands and countries manage all this wealth
Enlightened self interest. Those "insignificant" islands are generally speaking countries. By showing respect for the rule of law even in situations where they could easily overwhelm with force or economic power smaller nations, the larger ones reinforce that the law matters.
The larger countries use as a defense the idea that something is an "internal matter", IE it's no one else's business. If they bully their way into other smaller countries' business, then they open themselves up to the same interference.
Might does not make one right. Law does.
Enlightened self interest. Those "insignificant" islands are generally speaking countries. By showing respect for the rule of law even in situations where they could easily overwhelm with force or economic power smaller nations, the larger ones reinforce that the law matters.
The larger countries use as a defense the idea that something is an "internal matter", IE it's no one else's business. If they bully their way into other smaller countries' business, then they open themselves up to the same interference.
Might does not make one right. Law does.
That's a pretty noble, if naive reason. "Rule of law" stops where economic interests begin and always has. Rule of law didn't stop the invasion of Iraq. Rule of law hasn't stopped the countless CIA backed coups in South America. Rule of law didn't stop funding/promoting the Arab spring.
Larger countries constantly bully smaller ones and will continue to do so anytime it's economically convenient. The reason Grand Cayman exists is because the people with money that control global politics want it to exist. That's the beginning and end of the story. There's a reason the Panama Papers went away quietly despite the assassination of the human who exposed it...
Larger countries constantly bully smaller ones and will continue to do so anytime it's economically convenient. The reason Grand Cayman exists is because the people with money that control global politics want it to exist. That's the beginning and end of the story. There's a reason the Panama Papers went away quietly despite the assassination of the human who exposed it...
>There's a reason the Panama Papers went away quietly despite the assassination of the human who exposed it.
The human who exposed it is still anonymous. A journalist who wrote using the Panama Papers as a source was murdered, most likely by local Maltese exposed by the journalist.
There has been $1B plus in taxes recovered as a result of the publication.
The human who exposed it is still anonymous. A journalist who wrote using the Panama Papers as a source was murdered, most likely by local Maltese exposed by the journalist.
There has been $1B plus in taxes recovered as a result of the publication.
>There has been $1B plus in taxes recovered as a result of the publication.
How many people are in prison? How many middle class folks get by with a slap on the wrist for tax evasion?
How many people are in prison? How many middle class folks get by with a slap on the wrist for tax evasion?
Most people that get caught for tax avoidance get punished civilly (fines etc).
Corporates can't be put in prison and piercing that veil takes a lot of work. Getting the money disgorged is a good step.
Corporates can't be put in prison and piercing that veil takes a lot of work. Getting the money disgorged is a good step.
> funding/promoting the Arab spring.
Details? By whom? What for? Is this claim based on anything?
Details? By whom? What for? Is this claim based on anything?
> Rule of law didn't stop the invasion of Iraq. Rule of law hasn't stopped the countless CIA backed coups in South America. Rule of law didn't stop funding/promoting the Arab spring.
These places were all considered "rogue states" at some point, i.e. places that openly neglected the very same rule of law which protects others. Being a 'rogue' state may leave you open to being bullied, but that's hardly inconsistent with rule of law being very important.
These places were all considered "rogue states" at some point, i.e. places that openly neglected the very same rule of law which protects others. Being a 'rogue' state may leave you open to being bullied, but that's hardly inconsistent with rule of law being very important.
"Rule of law" doesn't mean picking and choosing whom it applies to. Saddam was our best buddy when he was using mustard gas in Khuzestan against the right people.
International politics is rule by power rather than rule of law. The person you're replying to got it right.
International politics is rule by power rather than rule of law. The person you're replying to got it right.
what criteria were/are used to make that consideration? because it sure as hell seems the US and Israel qualify, at least recently, for largely subjective definitions that i can come up with. alternatively if there are objective definitions, let's see them and decide for ourselves.
it seems, then, the only thing stopping these rogue states are powers or coalitions of powers with the potential to dominate them (or i guess survive) via conflict, either via subterfuge or military means, and the will to do so. put more simply, reigning in Iraq or Nicaragua is a hell of a lot easier than Israel. why is that, if not for power differentials?
it seems, then, the only thing stopping these rogue states are powers or coalitions of powers with the potential to dominate them (or i guess survive) via conflict, either via subterfuge or military means, and the will to do so. put more simply, reigning in Iraq or Nicaragua is a hell of a lot easier than Israel. why is that, if not for power differentials?
> These places were all considered "rogue states" at some point, i.e. places that openly neglected the very same rule of law which protects others.
That still doesn't change the reality that the US broke international laws [0] under the pretext of supposedly enforcing them.
And it did so in a very calculated and premeditated way [1] that justified everything on a domestic legal basis, while completely disregarding international law and institutions like they do not matter at all.
Imagine if China would pass a law declaring how their soldiers and government officials can't be held accountable by any international body, how would that be framed by US media?
Yet in the US, this has been established legal reality for close to two decades and plenty of US Americans defend it like it's the most normal thing in the world due to their internalized "exceptionalism".
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
That still doesn't change the reality that the US broke international laws [0] under the pretext of supposedly enforcing them.
And it did so in a very calculated and premeditated way [1] that justified everything on a domestic legal basis, while completely disregarding international law and institutions like they do not matter at all.
Imagine if China would pass a law declaring how their soldiers and government officials can't be held accountable by any international body, how would that be framed by US media?
Yet in the US, this has been established legal reality for close to two decades and plenty of US Americans defend it like it's the most normal thing in the world due to their internalized "exceptionalism".
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
I think it is a mistake to think that relations between sovereign nations is based on "rule of law". Yes there are legal principles involved, but mostly, sovereign nations deal with other sovereign nations via realpolitik.
On the other hand, I think that within a sovereign nation the adherence to "rule of law" has a more substantial meaning and relevance.
On the other hand, I think that within a sovereign nation the adherence to "rule of law" has a more substantial meaning and relevance.
Realpolitik is a sham, it got us two world wars. After these, rule of law became, for a short prosperous time, more dominant, at least in Western Europe.
These things (laws, ability to peacefully cooperate, ethics) are like religion, if you believe in them, they, for all intent and purposes, exist.
But we are infused with an ideology of rational distrust, because a small amount of people can't mentally grasp any alternative to power. so we dig our own graves.
These things (laws, ability to peacefully cooperate, ethics) are like religion, if you believe in them, they, for all intent and purposes, exist.
But we are infused with an ideology of rational distrust, because a small amount of people can't mentally grasp any alternative to power. so we dig our own graves.
this doesn't pass the smell test for me. first, we're talking about powerful vs. not so let's not use area as a proxy for power; that's not appropriate.
given that, history is rife with examples of powerful nations basically looking the other way when other countries not in their playpen get "bullied". these large international bodies e.g. League of Nations, UN have all failed generally when powerful entities decide they want to shake things up. individuals countries, obligated by treaty, also failed when e.g. Germany decided it wanted to chow down on "certain" parts of Europe. consider pre-WW2, Israel, what the US has done post-WW2, China/Xinjiang, etc. etc.
given that, history is rife with examples of powerful nations basically looking the other way when other countries not in their playpen get "bullied". these large international bodies e.g. League of Nations, UN have all failed generally when powerful entities decide they want to shake things up. individuals countries, obligated by treaty, also failed when e.g. Germany decided it wanted to chow down on "certain" parts of Europe. consider pre-WW2, Israel, what the US has done post-WW2, China/Xinjiang, etc. etc.
What about Israel?
Israel isn't expanding, all lands it conquered were in wars it didn't initiate. when a chance for peace came, it gave these lands back.
Did you see a map recently? Do you grasp the size of Israel vs it's neighbors? (The Sinai desert, which Israel gave back to Egypt as part of the peace agreement is x3 larger than Israel)
You can't clamp together imperialists like US Germany and China with Israel defense strategy, that's just weird.
Now don't get me wrong, some israeli leaders did/do crappy things, but never at the scale of China US or Germany, or for that matter any colonial country. It's a whole different scale.
Did you see a map recently? Do you grasp the size of Israel vs it's neighbors? (The Sinai desert, which Israel gave back to Egypt as part of the peace agreement is x3 larger than Israel)
You can't clamp together imperialists like US Germany and China with Israel defense strategy, that's just weird.
Now don't get me wrong, some israeli leaders did/do crappy things, but never at the scale of China US or Germany, or for that matter any colonial country. It's a whole different scale.
> Israel isn't expanding, all lands it conquered were in wars it didn't initiate.
That's not strictly true. You're forgetting the 1947–1949 Palestine war, the first part of which was effectively a civil war where there's ample evidence of Jewish militias, with premeditation, taking part in land grabs every bit as much as the Arab militias.
In the West and especially in America this aspect is overlooked and even denied, as it doesn't fit the narrative of Israel as the underdog. Conversely, in the Muslim world this is pretty much the only aspect they want to discuss, for similarly self-serving reasons.
That's not strictly true. You're forgetting the 1947–1949 Palestine war, the first part of which was effectively a civil war where there's ample evidence of Jewish militias, with premeditation, taking part in land grabs every bit as much as the Arab militias.
In the West and especially in America this aspect is overlooked and even denied, as it doesn't fit the narrative of Israel as the underdog. Conversely, in the Muslim world this is pretty much the only aspect they want to discuss, for similarly self-serving reasons.
That's not really accurate.
Israel accepted the division plan the British offered where part of the land was to be Israel and the other Palestine.
The Palestinians didn't accept it, and 5 Arab armies attacked the newly founded Israel while calling for driving all the jews to the sea. (Mean while Ben Gurion asked the local Arab population to stay and promised equal rights in the new country. Both right wing and left wing Israeli leaders of that time talked about equal rights, while the Arab leaders talked about annihilation, and asked the local Arabs to leave while the clean the land from jews)
Israel fought back, and got territorial gains. Of course there were Jewish militias, Jews in British Mandate era were constantly being attacked by local arabs.
Anyway, even with all the complications of this era and our ability to form a tidy nerrative, the comparison of Israel to American and Chinese empirialism is just crazy talk. This stays true even if you totally accept the Arab narrative.
Israel fought back, and got territorial gains. Of course there were Jewish militias, Jews in British Mandate era were constantly being attacked by local arabs.
Anyway, even with all the complications of this era and our ability to form a tidy nerrative, the comparison of Israel to American and Chinese empirialism is just crazy talk. This stays true even if you totally accept the Arab narrative.
> these large international bodies e.g. League of Nations, UN have all failed generally when large, powerful entities decide they want to shake things up.
The UNSC is actually a pretty successful institution, all things considered. It gives "shakeups" a reasonable chance of being defused, and that's good enough most of the time. Enlightened self interest has to do the rest, of course - so failures will occur, but they ought to be rare. And Nazi Germany, the PRC in Xinjang etc. aren't exactly models of the rule of law!
The UNSC is actually a pretty successful institution, all things considered. It gives "shakeups" a reasonable chance of being defused, and that's good enough most of the time. Enlightened self interest has to do the rest, of course - so failures will occur, but they ought to be rare. And Nazi Germany, the PRC in Xinjang etc. aren't exactly models of the rule of law!
[deleted]
> Although I will always be curious why countries are letting those small, insignificant islands and countries manage all this wealth
Those small, insignificant islands and countries are current or former british or european colonies. And considering they are primarily located in the caribbean, the chances of them being successfully attacked is zero - good luck going up against the might of the US Navy.
> How do you wire all this money to such a small place
Whether it's $10 or $1000000, it's just a number (a few bytes) on transfer or just a few more digits on a check.
> and how can they trust so few people to hide so much money?
It's easier to trust a few rather than the many.
Those small, insignificant islands and countries are current or former british or european colonies. And considering they are primarily located in the caribbean, the chances of them being successfully attacked is zero - good luck going up against the might of the US Navy.
> How do you wire all this money to such a small place
Whether it's $10 or $1000000, it's just a number (a few bytes) on transfer or just a few more digits on a check.
> and how can they trust so few people to hide so much money?
It's easier to trust a few rather than the many.
> the chances of them being successfully attacked is zero
Mother nature can successfully attack whole islands.
Mother nature can successfully attack whole islands.
Do you think the money is on those small islands? Or on Guernsey? Or the British Channel Islands? No, the money is in New York and London at the usual banks who earn money on fees and can work with the deposits. The banks on those islands don't have a data center, or a bank vault. They only legally have the money on paper, but "their" money is in the banks in NYC (Caribbean) and London (former Empire).
Interesting read "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World", Nicholas Shaxson
Interesting read "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World", Nicholas Shaxson
Most of these assets, although "located" in obscure places, are actually warehoused right back here in the US of A.
Their status as being "held" outside the US is mostly a fiction existing on paper which allows for privacy and tax avoidance.
Their status as being "held" outside the US is mostly a fiction existing on paper which allows for privacy and tax avoidance.
Because the people who run "countries" use these services.
> Although I will always be curious why countries are letting those small, insignificant islands and countries manage all this wealth, and why they're trusted to do it.
Probably because the people who run the state are also people who take advantage of these tax loopholes. I don't believe the US even needs foreign countries to hide taxes this well, we have better mechanisms in e.g. South Dakota.
Probably because the people who run the state are also people who take advantage of these tax loopholes. I don't believe the US even needs foreign countries to hide taxes this well, we have better mechanisms in e.g. South Dakota.
Hanlon's razor. Also, a Michelle Obama quote[0].
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/michelle-obama-tells-secret-i-have-...
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/michelle-obama-tells-secret-i-have-...
>Although I will always be curious why countries are letting those small, insignificant islands and countries manage all this wealth,
British Overseas Territory
British Overseas Territory
Big growing economies benefit from tax havens, because they get capital more easily, because the profits can be extracted at a low cost from other countries.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21571339
And naturally, as others noted, the security is quite good.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21571339
And naturally, as others noted, the security is quite good.
Most people don't know the US is the preferred tax haven of the world.
We aren't a tax haven. We are a wealth haven. People buy assets here like real estate. They are more concerned with the strong privacy rules and strong protections for property. In terms of actually earning money, that is better left to tax havens or special economic zones.
[deleted]
The Cayman Islands has robust financial regulations and is a financial center.
It is also reliant on the UK for military assistance, and as you can see the bank records for this particular institution are digital.
You are grouping everything together with misplaced isolationist paranoia.
It is also reliant on the UK for military assistance, and as you can see the bank records for this particular institution are digital.
You are grouping everything together with misplaced isolationist paranoia.
The Cayman Islands is a vassal state of the global one percent as a tax shelter. Let's call it what it really is. It's not a global financial center the way NYC or Hong Kong or Tokyo are.
It's a sand bar with a bunch of post office box company registries and some banks. I hear there is also good snorkeling.
It's a sand bar with a bunch of post office box company registries and some banks. I hear there is also good snorkeling.
Great scuba diving. Highly recommend a visit. :-)
>is a vassal state of the global one percent as a tax shelter
Just FYI, to be in the global one percent you need an income of $32,400 per year
Just FYI, to be in the global one percent you need an income of $32,400 per year
That won't get you into the global 1%.
Around 70 million people are earning more than $50,000 per year in the US.
Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, etc. combined also have a very large number of people similarly over that line.
Your figure probably needs to be 100% higher.
Around 70 million people are earning more than $50,000 per year in the US.
Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, etc. combined also have a very large number of people similarly over that line.
Your figure probably needs to be 100% higher.
Do you have a source for that? We're pushing 7 billion people on the planet.
Here's a source that uses that $34k figure: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...
Here's a source that uses that $34k figure: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...
That's pretty straightforward. There are 128 million people working full-time jobs in the US. The full-time median income in the US is between $48,000 and $52,000 for 2019 depending on your source. The BLS says it's about $48k for the third quarter of 2019.
The often quoted lower median figure, in the $30,000s ($34,000x for 2019; it was ~$33,700 for 2018), is the median income for all US workers, including people working relatively few hours.
Being conservative, the US has at least 60x million people making $50,000 or more per year. That's ignoring anything that doesn't show up in the BLS numbers.
Now consider how massive the rest of the global economy is and the tens of millions of people in dozens of other countries with high incomes. The US all by itself eliminates the possibility of $34,000 being the 1% line.
With the strict US median at the $34,000 line, that's ~78 million workers at or above that level. Again, that's for one country.
China has a very large number of people earning around the US median now, due to their scale. They add tens of millions of more people to the over $34k group. Then include Western Europe, they add tens of millions more. And so on.
The often quoted lower median figure, in the $30,000s ($34,000x for 2019; it was ~$33,700 for 2018), is the median income for all US workers, including people working relatively few hours.
Being conservative, the US has at least 60x million people making $50,000 or more per year. That's ignoring anything that doesn't show up in the BLS numbers.
Now consider how massive the rest of the global economy is and the tens of millions of people in dozens of other countries with high incomes. The US all by itself eliminates the possibility of $34,000 being the 1% line.
With the strict US median at the $34,000 line, that's ~78 million workers at or above that level. Again, that's for one country.
China has a very large number of people earning around the US median now, due to their scale. They add tens of millions of more people to the over $34k group. Then include Western Europe, they add tens of millions more. And so on.
Good point. Looks like my number is outdated, it's from the worldbank data from a decade back
Individual or household?
Their legislative branch is extremely competent at evaluating and passing competitive laws for business and banking, their executive branch is extremely competent at providing the administrative services and modern digital facilities for international business and banking, and their judicial branch is extremely competent at resolving disputes.
The government's budget is also balanced without passive taxation of this sector.
Most jurisdictions, whether they are other island nations or a state in the US are not competent in any of these regards and this has utility on this planet.
It would be an understatement for me to just point out how much I don't care how uncompetitive other nations are in this regard, and I also don't care about the challenges for them to become competitive.
The government's budget is also balanced without passive taxation of this sector.
Most jurisdictions, whether they are other island nations or a state in the US are not competent in any of these regards and this has utility on this planet.
It would be an understatement for me to just point out how much I don't care how uncompetitive other nations are in this regard, and I also don't care about the challenges for them to become competitive.
>Their legislative branch is extremely competent at evaluating and passing competitive laws for business and banking
as if races to the bottom are challenging
>this has utility on this planet
The only utility the Caymans serve is unfettered human greed.
as if races to the bottom are challenging
>this has utility on this planet
The only utility the Caymans serve is unfettered human greed.
If my sole purpose was to be good at X things, I'd be good at them.
Somebody tell the British Virgin Islands, St. Kitts & Nevis and the Seychelles
They seem to have missed the memo :D
I feel like if I had said the Caymans was incompetent I feel the replies whether from you or others would have said “well of course they are” but anyway their regulators and public servants are often US educated at prestigious universities
They seem to have missed the memo :D
I feel like if I had said the Caymans was incompetent I feel the replies whether from you or others would have said “well of course they are” but anyway their regulators and public servants are often US educated at prestigious universities
The money isn't being kept there for safety, it's being kept there for anonymity and easy access. These countries don't ask any questions when you show up and ask to withdraw a million dollars. Maybe you're withdrawing that money to buy a yacht, maybe you're withdrawing it to buy drugs, maybe you're withdrawing it to pay for a seat on Epstein Air. Banks in developed countries ask questions, these banks in these countries ask 0 questions.
Yep, and the moment someone starts asking questions or being "uncooperative" they are dealt with - as was Amine Halawi in [0].
[0] https://theintercept.com/2019/10/26/jho-low-1mbd-comoros-off...
[0] https://theintercept.com/2019/10/26/jho-low-1mbd-comoros-off...
Strangely under-reported is that the same hacker is offering up to 100k to others who perform similar acts of hacktivism:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb5agy/phineas-fisher-off...
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb5agy/phineas-fisher-off...
So this activist has somehow profited from his “hacktivism” and he wants to spread his wealth to other activists?
Or possibly someone who became wealthy in the software/opsec industry who believes what they do is for the good of humanity. To a person with a net worth of 100MM+ 100k would not be significant.
The funds didn't necessarily come from the hacktivism.
Edit: Given the bounty is paid in bitcoin, somewhat more likely the funds are donations/fees from hacking. Not likely it came from funds deposited to an exchange (traceable account). Could also be someone who was mining in 2009 (and not from the hacking itself).
The funds didn't necessarily come from the hacktivism.
Edit: Given the bounty is paid in bitcoin, somewhat more likely the funds are donations/fees from hacking. Not likely it came from funds deposited to an exchange (traceable account). Could also be someone who was mining in 2009 (and not from the hacking itself).
Or he bought bitcoin / etherum early on.
On a side note: hope the identity of him stays a secret. Publishing stuff like that gets you killed..
On a side note: hope the identity of him stays a secret. Publishing stuff like that gets you killed..
Also there's likely a lot of bitcoin that's known to be connected with illegal activities, say drug business and ransomware. I suppose there's ways to launder them, but it's not necessarily cheap or easy. That sort of bitcoin might be easier to give away anonymously.
In the text file he uploaded, he said he was only able to extract a few hundred thousand[1]. I did use Google translate though.
> In Myself case, this was the first bank that hacked, and at that time I only had a few few and mediocre accounts prepared to withdraw cash (known as bank drops), so it was only a few hundred thousand who I was able to withdraw in total, when it is normal to get millions.
[1] https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?u=https:...
> In Myself case, this was the first bank that hacked, and at that time I only had a few few and mediocre accounts prepared to withdraw cash (known as bank drops), so it was only a few hundred thousand who I was able to withdraw in total, when it is normal to get millions.
[1] https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?u=https:...
I think that's one possible reading of it. They talk about how they already donated the money from this hack to various resistance movements, so I guess the bounty is being funded from something else.
The bounty works on a sliding scale, according to the manifesto, depending on "the public interest and impact of the material, and the labor required in the hacking."
They go on to say that "I am not trying to enrich anyone. I just want to provide enough funds so that hackers can earn a decent living doing a good job."
The bounty works on a sliding scale, according to the manifesto, depending on "the public interest and impact of the material, and the labor required in the hacking."
They go on to say that "I am not trying to enrich anyone. I just want to provide enough funds so that hackers can earn a decent living doing a good job."
Her
Pastebin with translated guide on how they hacked the bank:
https://pastebin.com/8rXhtqgr
https://pastebin.com/8rXhtqgr
Also contains some info on how they hacked Hacking Team and Gamma Group.
Edit: Also a $100k bounty for future hacks on certain types of companies.
Edit: Also a $100k bounty for future hacks on certain types of companies.
She also attacked the Barcelona police department, the Turkish government, and stole money from various Bitcoin wallets to donate to the Kurds iirc. Her write-ups are always really great reads and very enlightening.
Their pronouns are they/them.
https://twitter.com/DDoSecrets/status/1196397044644163585
https://twitter.com/DDoSecrets/status/1196397044644163585
I think you got the wrong URL. Here you are: https://mobile.twitter.com/DDoSecrets/status/119621668503812...
Ah, darn it. Yeah, I did. Oops. Cheers.
Sorry where are you seeing that from that link?
Sorry, I posted the wrong link. :/ See sibling response to my post for the correct link: https://mobile.twitter.com/DDoSecrets/status/119621668503812...
Is there a collection of her write-ups somewhere?
These are the ones I am aware of:
https://pastebin.com/0SNSvyjJ
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=cRYvK4jb
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_ZhFCS3AQ
https://pastebin.com/0SNSvyjJ
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=cRYvK4jb
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_ZhFCS3AQ
This is a fascinating read... I hope it does make the news.
It doesn't tell you how they infiltrated to begin with so that they can sniff cookies and keystrokes. But my guess is they phished an employee.
Edit: I missed that part,sorry.
Edit: I missed that part,sorry.
I thought it was pretty clear. They had already developed a Sonic Wall VPN exploit. They used zmap to scan for vulnerable devices then grepped the hostnames for "bank". When they exploited the VPN it gave them the whole network.
>In this case, on the other hand, it was the same Windows domain passwords that were used to authenticate against the VPN, so I could get a good user password, including that of the domain admin. Now I had full access to his network
>In this case, on the other hand, it was the same Windows domain passwords that were used to authenticate against the VPN, so I could get a good user password, including that of the domain admin. Now I had full access to his network
To me, the scary part about this is: After Equifax, this is another big hack... and practically, it's one layer of defense and that's it. Shellshock, one password, everything's fucked. And yes, expletives are appropriate there. The rest is largely access maintenance, keyloggers and execution.
That's scary. Maybe I'll need to badger my boss about a serious pentest of everything.
That's scary. Maybe I'll need to badger my boss about a serious pentest of everything.
Dude, forget a pentest, have a security architect look things over. Simple segmentation and endpoint firewall witha good edr might have stopped this. Everyone misses the basics, a lot of networks were pieced together 10+ years ago when people were not as security conscious as they are now.
Our first pen test, before I took over as CTO... We had a JSON file with admin credentials on a shared drive. IT company needed it there so some tool could log in as admin and do some robot work.
Fired them, and good riddance. But... STUPID SIMPLE things can get overlooked for years until you have someone else come in and test.
+1 for pentests.
Fired them, and good riddance. But... STUPID SIMPLE things can get overlooked for years until you have someone else come in and test.
+1 for pentests.
For sure, I wasn't disagreeing. I meant have someone look at your architecture and make sure best practices are followed and insane designs don't exist before you pay for a pentester . pentest results can be used to adjust architecture but a pentester will show you one or a few ways they acheived the objective, they won't do a hollistic review of architecture,procedures,practices,etc...
So after firing the vendor, who on your side got fired for allowing it in the first place?
The way you phrase the question is odd/misleading.
GP wrote that he replaced the previous CTO.
Before firing the vendor, the responsible party on their side had already left the role.
GP wrote that he replaced the previous CTO.
Before firing the vendor, the responsible party on their side had already left the role.
Like many orgs that don't know any better, our CFO thought because he was good at excel that he was qualified to direct IT.
That is no longer the case. To answer your question though, you know how hard it is to fire a CFO? Let me know if you have any tips.
That is no longer the case. To answer your question though, you know how hard it is to fire a CFO? Let me know if you have any tips.
Why would anyone get fired, explicit approval and imppicit incompetence should be handled differently. If pentests get people fired, no one wants a pentest. Refusing to accept and resolve pentest results can be fireable but a pentest is suppose to help you improve what you have already.
As I understand it this hack took place in 2016, they are just claiming it now. That's why they mention powershell being more useful.
Crunchy on the outside, chewy on the inside.
You're right, I tried to skip the rest and find the technical part but missed it.
He explicitly mentions how he exploited it and that at the same time, somebody else tried to phish...
She!
This is not a hill that I am willing to die on, but when was gender decided? Everything I've read up until now has kept it ambiguous:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DDoSecrets/status/119621668503812...
https://mobile.twitter.com/DDoSecrets/status/119621668503812...
Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a hill at all :) It was called out in the pastebin in the comment originating this chain.
Stated in the readme file, "I was a girl raised by the internet."
[deleted]
[deleted]
Maybe. Or just good OpSec?
She says she's a woman. We don't need to go into convoluted conspiracy theories to deny someone their reported gender.
> Dell had setuid’d root on dos2unix, leaving the device easy to root.
Yikes.
Yikes.
I had a quick peak at the web server log, it's tiny. The typical legitimate egress from this network is likely somewhere well under 1gb/day, yet somehow these people managed to upload at least 2TB without being noticed
In a well-maintained network an upload like this should have paged someone as it was happening, probably sometime in the first 5-10 minutes. Say your outbound pipe was 100mbit, if it is pegged for 15 minutes I can't see any reason why a small installation like this wouldn't want to know they've just spat out 11GB of data for some unknown reason
Even divvying things up over 14 days (per the age of the data), its still around 6GB/day. This should have shown up in a monitoring graph somewhere, or triggered a page
In a well-maintained network an upload like this should have paged someone as it was happening, probably sometime in the first 5-10 minutes. Say your outbound pipe was 100mbit, if it is pegged for 15 minutes I can't see any reason why a small installation like this wouldn't want to know they've just spat out 11GB of data for some unknown reason
Even divvying things up over 14 days (per the age of the data), its still around 6GB/day. This should have shown up in a monitoring graph somewhere, or triggered a page
magnet of the torrent since the site seems to be overloaded: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:5b1b0092848d0b8e2f08d825111264c4818a2df3
[deleted]
[deleted]
A .torrent file hosted by the Internet Archive, since DDOSecret is apparently being DDOSed: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://data.ddosecrets.com/fi...
This size of dataset does seem to me like a good case of why the current torrent format is lacking. Many people might be interested in generally seeding for this torrent, and maybe pulling some of the files. But few are actually going to download the full 2TB. At the moment, I can select individual files to download and seed, ignoring the rest, but I cannot say "download what I want, and then seed random blocks up to a size of X GB."
It's quite conceivable that in a few months, the bigger, less "popular" files will be very hard to come by.
That's (maybe the) one thing I think IPFS gets really right: full availability of the whole dataset, regardless of the popularity of the individual blocks. There were some BEPs about that IIRC, but they never got anywhere. I always figured archive.org and similar collection hosters would be interested in this sort of thing, so that people can just "donate 1 TB to archive.org" or such.
That's (maybe the) one thing I think IPFS gets really right: full availability of the whole dataset, regardless of the popularity of the individual blocks. There were some BEPs about that IIRC, but they never got anywhere. I always figured archive.org and similar collection hosters would be interested in this sort of thing, so that people can just "donate 1 TB to archive.org" or such.
I agree with what you're saying, although there is not really a reason why this can't be done with BT client-side. It's just that, AFAIK, no torrent client supports this.
BT will, by default, prefer to download the least popular blocks. Client-side just needs a setting to "stop downloading after X blocks", divide your 1TB by the block size, and that's how many blocks you need to download to get 1TB.
I will add though, unfortunately with this torrent (at least the one that I am attempting to download), simply seeding a certain number of blocks is not very helpful. The files are mostly in a few giant zip files.
BT will, by default, prefer to download the least popular blocks. Client-side just needs a setting to "stop downloading after X blocks", divide your 1TB by the block size, and that's how many blocks you need to download to get 1TB.
I will add though, unfortunately with this torrent (at least the one that I am attempting to download), simply seeding a certain number of blocks is not very helpful. The files are mostly in a few giant zip files.
This is going to be swept under the rug faster than Epstein, assuming it even surfaces in the mainstream press at all. Lots of rich people run their stuff through the Cayman Islands, probably more than through Panama. So far, as far as I can tell, no mention in the US. The entire front pages of major national newspapers (WaPo and NYTimes) are dedicated to their single-minded mission of telling everyone that orange man is bad.
I'm not sure of the details, but the Caymans have a reciprocal reporting arrangement with US tax authorities and financial regulators. That is, if you're an American, you can't really hide money there. What you can do is operate a subsidiary there (and it must have resident employees) that generates reasonable revenues with minimal costs, thus shifting revenue and profits to the Caymans low tax jurisdiction. Which will be reported to the US gov, so you better be complying with the letter of both US and Caymans law. Because of these reporting agreements, if there is activity in the Caymans that is illegal in a person's/company's homeland, it will likely be european or chinese, not the US.
Yeah, because I'm sure the Cayman Islands take enforcing that seriously, and because the IRS has any budget to go after rich people...
Regrettably the media needs to publish what gets the most clicks; unfortunately what gets the most clicks these days is partisan stories that gets readers riled up.
That Panama leak story was also quickly "forgotten" by the MSM.
That Panama leak story was also quickly "forgotten" by the MSM.
An exception is the Netflix movie, "The Laundromat", which deserves wider viewing.
It starts off like quirky satire, and then it morphs into actual lampooning of two specific real lawyers by name. They sued to suppress the movie and then lost. A journalist writing about the papers was killed in a car bomb.
It starts off like quirky satire, and then it morphs into actual lampooning of two specific real lawyers by name. They sued to suppress the movie and then lost. A journalist writing about the papers was killed in a car bomb.
Exactly this - one wonders why anyone would rationally become a journalist. The pay is crap, the verbal attacks are constant ("fake news", etc), the competition is immense (publish NOW because it's already on Twitter, yet it needs to be 100% factually accurate, so don't forget to triple-check your sources), and oh by the way, if you report on anything of societal value (rooting out corruption, printing stories about drug cartels), you may get yourself killed.
Or I could sit quietly, write some code to enable more ad views on tech platform du jour, get paid bank, and complain about journalism on Hacker News with my free time between deploys. Guess which one I would choose?
Or I could sit quietly, write some code to enable more ad views on tech platform du jour, get paid bank, and complain about journalism on Hacker News with my free time between deploys. Guess which one I would choose?
> and oh by the way, if you report on anything of societal value (rooting out corruption, printing stories about drug cartels), you may get yourself killed.
Don't forget sued, which prevents many independent journalists from being as aggressive as they should be with the plutocratic class and large corporations in countries where murdering journalists is still verboten. If you don't have the legal resources (and insurance) of a major news organization behind you, good luck writing the type of stories that cause discomfort to the powerful.
Don't forget sued, which prevents many independent journalists from being as aggressive as they should be with the plutocratic class and large corporations in countries where murdering journalists is still verboten. If you don't have the legal resources (and insurance) of a major news organization behind you, good luck writing the type of stories that cause discomfort to the powerful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...
https://www.propublica.org/article/terror-in-little-saigon-v...
If you confront the powerful, it often ends up being too little, too late, in terms of government protections.
https://www.propublica.org/article/terror-in-little-saigon-v...
If you confront the powerful, it often ends up being too little, too late, in terms of government protections.
Having worked closely with and been friends with journalists:
It's because they believe in the work, find it interesting compared to other lines of work, or were inspired by other writers. They don't get into it for the money. They leave the profession or advance in position for the money.
It's because they believe in the work, find it interesting compared to other lines of work, or were inspired by other writers. They don't get into it for the money. They leave the profession or advance in position for the money.
but maybe in ten years, you'll regret your choice
or maybe you won't because you won't even know what you are missing out
not judging you, I program and sit in an office, but I can understand the magic of being in the middle of the pulse of the world. It is a world that I only look at as a bystander.
perhaps being a journalist is paid little because it is you are more alive, instead of programming the next punch-the-monkey, you are tracking the money that rich people hide, investigate the dark side, with that you basically "live longer"
or maybe you won't because you won't even know what you are missing out
not judging you, I program and sit in an office, but I can understand the magic of being in the middle of the pulse of the world. It is a world that I only look at as a bystander.
perhaps being a journalist is paid little because it is you are more alive, instead of programming the next punch-the-monkey, you are tracking the money that rich people hide, investigate the dark side, with that you basically "live longer"
Even in a hundred years he wouldn’t regret the choice. Nothing you described sounds appealing. Journalists see most technology like a black box that does mysterious things and produces an output, just like a bystander. If you don’t want to be a bystander to those processes, you become a programmer.
you are conflating the job of journalist with a journalist's relationship with technology - even at that, you are both generalizing and oversimplifying.
What I specifically referred to is that programming a computer as a day job (for example as the poster said their job is optimizing ads for a website) is probably far less fulfilling than following and analyzing world events and doing journalism. That's all.
What I specifically referred to is that programming a computer as a day job (for example as the poster said their job is optimizing ads for a website) is probably far less fulfilling than following and analyzing world events and doing journalism. That's all.
Why do you think world events are inherently more fulfilling?
A long time ago I realized there’s nothing interesting about world events. Most will have little to no effect on me and most of it is just like one big reality show. I now actively avoid learning about world events and am much happier. I’d rather learn about events local to me or stories about people I may be able to relate to, and none of those really require journalists.
The things you can do with software and computers are far more interesting than reading about how corrupt some rich guy is. I don’t give a shit about him or his corruption.
A long time ago I realized there’s nothing interesting about world events. Most will have little to no effect on me and most of it is just like one big reality show. I now actively avoid learning about world events and am much happier. I’d rather learn about events local to me or stories about people I may be able to relate to, and none of those really require journalists.
The things you can do with software and computers are far more interesting than reading about how corrupt some rich guy is. I don’t give a shit about him or his corruption.
I don't follow why you equate journalism with covering corruption - that's just a small fraction of all news.
Overall I am not sure what point are you trying to make. That today you feel happier as a programmer? Sure, good for you.
I am only calling out the naive and frankly childishly simplistic arguments made in this thread that state things along the line: "It must suck to be a journalist, thank god I program ads for a website"
I have come believe that jobs that are hard to do but don't pay well are such because are more fulfilling and people are willing to trade monetary remuneration for a more interesting line of work. Many people (and it seems that you feel that way too) take this as a critique of their choices: "No way that a job that pays less than what I do is more interesting! Especially not a journalist/teacher/policeman etc."
Overall I am not sure what point are you trying to make. That today you feel happier as a programmer? Sure, good for you.
I am only calling out the naive and frankly childishly simplistic arguments made in this thread that state things along the line: "It must suck to be a journalist, thank god I program ads for a website"
I have come believe that jobs that are hard to do but don't pay well are such because are more fulfilling and people are willing to trade monetary remuneration for a more interesting line of work. Many people (and it seems that you feel that way too) take this as a critique of their choices: "No way that a job that pays less than what I do is more interesting! Especially not a journalist/teacher/policeman etc."
One may wonder the same about many professions like primary/secondary teaching.
The answer is that lots of humans like that sort of work.
The answer is that lots of humans like that sort of work.
Are you blaming the media for getting people what they want?
As long as people demand the click-bait only the ones that provide such content will survive. Let's thank our luck that it is not Infowars style clickbait, so some resemblance of sanity still remains.
FWIW the Panama papers have had a noticeable impact, especially where it matters most, clawing money back
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
As long as people demand the click-bait only the ones that provide such content will survive. Let's thank our luck that it is not Infowars style clickbait, so some resemblance of sanity still remains.
FWIW the Panama papers have had a noticeable impact, especially where it matters most, clawing money back
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
>Are you blaming the media for getting people what they want?
Media is not inherently profitable, it's a loss leader whose ultimate product is influence and the manufacture of consent.
Media is not inherently profitable, it's a loss leader whose ultimate product is influence and the manufacture of consent.
Not your parent comment and not blaming the media for giving people what they want (especially since the media has trained consumers not to pay for news)
That said, this argument of giving people what they want is a weird one. It is like taking the easiest and the laziest route to profit. Also, there is a not insignificant population that still wants facts and not click baity nonsense. But media churns out click baits because it is easier and faster.
That said, this argument of giving people what they want is a weird one. It is like taking the easiest and the laziest route to profit. Also, there is a not insignificant population that still wants facts and not click baity nonsense. But media churns out click baits because it is easier and faster.
I've never met anyone that said they want more clickbait. Clickbait is what advertisers want and pay for. The articles are irrelevant, all advertisers care about is brand perception and conversions. Baity headlines exist to get people to click links and then the advertisements take over the job of coercing their ignorant victims into buying useless cheap junk they don't need or want.
The headlines themselves are advertisements:
'potus said -shocking thing-' (click here so 'you' have something to say to reinforce 'your' shallow self delusions that 'you're' a savvy, worldly, knowledgeable person instead of talking about what actually matters: [poverty, addiction, gas prices, unemployment, stagnant wage growth, unionization, corruption, health care costs, etc]).
The headlines themselves are advertisements:
'potus said -shocking thing-' (click here so 'you' have something to say to reinforce 'your' shallow self delusions that 'you're' a savvy, worldly, knowledgeable person instead of talking about what actually matters: [poverty, addiction, gas prices, unemployment, stagnant wage growth, unionization, corruption, health care costs, etc]).
Panama Papers/leaks were same story - most of the law firms clients were not Americans.
I'm sure the journalists would easily manage to make Panama very interesting if their owners didn't tell them to knock it off. Same as with Epstein. Scandal of the century, not discussed at all within 2 weeks, no follow up or investigative journalism of any kind.
I found former prosecutor and current defense attorney Ken White's perspective on Epstein's death very interesting. Many of the arguments for a conspiracy are based in a misunderstanding of how awfully our justice system treats people all the time. Being on suicide watch and not being helped is normal.
> Ken "Popehat" White (previously) has expanded on his excellent Twitter thread about Jeffrey Epstein's suicide in jail, and just how (shamefully) normal it is for prisoners to die in custody due to indifference, overwork, malfeasance and sadism on the part of prison authorities.
> In the Atlantic, White tells the stories of 32 inmates who died (or nearly died) in US custody, under circumstances that are every bit as absurd and negligent as those surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death.
> The point isn't that it's inconceivable that Epstein died as the result of a conspiracy, but the conspiracy theories that say that it has to be a setup because it's so implausible that prison authorities would be so totally useless are thoroughly disconnected from reality.
https://boingboing.net/2019/08/13/malice-vs-incompetence.htm...
> Ken "Popehat" White (previously) has expanded on his excellent Twitter thread about Jeffrey Epstein's suicide in jail, and just how (shamefully) normal it is for prisoners to die in custody due to indifference, overwork, malfeasance and sadism on the part of prison authorities.
> In the Atlantic, White tells the stories of 32 inmates who died (or nearly died) in US custody, under circumstances that are every bit as absurd and negligent as those surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death.
> The point isn't that it's inconceivable that Epstein died as the result of a conspiracy, but the conspiracy theories that say that it has to be a setup because it's so implausible that prison authorities would be so totally useless are thoroughly disconnected from reality.
https://boingboing.net/2019/08/13/malice-vs-incompetence.htm...
No one had killed themselves in that prison in over ten years.
You have to really contort all the information available in this case to see it as anything other than a massive cover up. People in the media going out of their way to claim it's a "conspiracy theory" should be held in utmost suspicion. Look at how ABC spiked the story of Epstein before it became public and how the other major networks have since played along. Including CBS firing the ABC whistle blower (who had since moved on to working with them) at ABC's request.
I don't know what Popehat's motives are for trying to cover this up further, but I bet he's friends with people who are implicated.
You have to really contort all the information available in this case to see it as anything other than a massive cover up. People in the media going out of their way to claim it's a "conspiracy theory" should be held in utmost suspicion. Look at how ABC spiked the story of Epstein before it became public and how the other major networks have since played along. Including CBS firing the ABC whistle blower (who had since moved on to working with them) at ABC's request.
I don't know what Popehat's motives are for trying to cover this up further, but I bet he's friends with people who are implicated.
Ken White has been criticizing the Justice system for years. His point is that Epstein's death should be seen as a wake-up call to improve the treatment of people in our prisons, and not an anomaly.
I found sources saying that guards were working 16-hour days and cutting corners regularly at the MCC (https://apnews.com/39ca1eb755914af8b273966c268a0a9b).
I couldn't find a source for your claim that no one else had committed suicide in the MCC in over ten years. Cite?
I found sources saying that guards were working 16-hour days and cutting corners regularly at the MCC (https://apnews.com/39ca1eb755914af8b273966c268a0a9b).
I couldn't find a source for your claim that no one else had committed suicide in the MCC in over ten years. Cite?
> I couldn't find a source for your claim that no one else had committed suicide in the MCC in over ten years. Cite?
Sure, one successful suicide in 21 years:
https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/suicide-supposedly-nearly-impo...
Anyone leaving that bit of information out of their narrative is being willfully deceptive or is not informed enough to have an opinion they should be making public.
Sure, one successful suicide in 21 years:
https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/suicide-supposedly-nearly-impo...
Anyone leaving that bit of information out of their narrative is being willfully deceptive or is not informed enough to have an opinion they should be making public.
Suicide is a common problem in federal prisons, accounting for around 30% of prisoner deaths. The NYPost article is deeply unsatisfying as a source to me because it conflate protections all prisoners have and protections prisoners on suicide watch have, and incorrectly states that cameras in federal prisons commonly cover sleeping areas. It also claims taking someone off suicide watch is unusual and rare, involving a lot of paperwork and evaluations. They are technically right that a lot of people have to sign off, but the process is often not taken very seriously.
Furthermore, in general the NY Post is seen as a far-right tabloid and I couldn't find any more reputable source making the same claim. And they don't provide much detail about their claim, hedging by saying that they tried looking up news articles and didn't find any (as opposed to having a more conclusive source) and report that there were a "handful" of unsuccessful suicides while omitting any further details. If they were a more reputable publication I'd give them some benefit of the doubt, but given their track record I'd want them to cite their sources more explicitly.
Still, your point did make me realize that every article I've ready about poor suicide watch procedures used national statistics instead of statistics specific to the MCC. That is a serious weakness of those sources.
Cite:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/jeffrey-epstein-su...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-...
Furthermore, in general the NY Post is seen as a far-right tabloid and I couldn't find any more reputable source making the same claim. And they don't provide much detail about their claim, hedging by saying that they tried looking up news articles and didn't find any (as opposed to having a more conclusive source) and report that there were a "handful" of unsuccessful suicides while omitting any further details. If they were a more reputable publication I'd give them some benefit of the doubt, but given their track record I'd want them to cite their sources more explicitly.
Still, your point did make me realize that every article I've ready about poor suicide watch procedures used national statistics instead of statistics specific to the MCC. That is a serious weakness of those sources.
Cite:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/jeffrey-epstein-su...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-...
Here's Fox saying it's been 40 years with some more detail:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/epstein-new-york-lockup-suicides
Regardless, it seems as if suicide is not a common occurrence in this prison. Epstein was the highest profile prisoner on the planet. His suicide is not routine and it shouldn't be discounted to incompetence, especially while these reports ignore how difficult it is to actually commit suicide in this particular facility.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/epstein-new-york-lockup-suicides
Regardless, it seems as if suicide is not a common occurrence in this prison. Epstein was the highest profile prisoner on the planet. His suicide is not routine and it shouldn't be discounted to incompetence, especially while these reports ignore how difficult it is to actually commit suicide in this particular facility.
Epstein wasn't a normal prisoner. None of this is particularly relevant.
Ken White addresses this. Even with high profile prisoners, guards face minimal accountability in the US prison system.
Did the "malfunctioning" cameras also just not fear accountability?
No, the people who were supposed to maintain them didn't bother because they knew they didn't have to fear accountability and they were extremely understaffed and overworked.
> A New York Times investigation published last year detailed this practice, under which federal prisons are so strapped for correctional officers that they regularly compel teachers, nurses, secretaries and other support staff members to step in. The practice has grown at some prisons as the Trump administration has curtailed the hiring of correctional officers.
> Many of these staff members only receive a few weeks’ training in correctional work, and, while required by contract to serve as substitutes, are often uncomfortable in the roles.
> Union officials said that for more than a year officials in Washington had been made aware of a severe staffing shortage at the facility in the wake of a federal hiring freeze. One of the guards on the unit where Mr. Epstein died had been working overtime for five straight days, while the other had been forced to work overtime that day, a union official said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/nyregion/epstein-barr.htm...
Here's another quote from Ken White, the criminal defense attorney I quoted above
> Jeffrey Epstein’s name and face are everywhere following his death. Even as an investigation reveals that the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where he died, was terminally short-staffed and relied on untrained guards who failed to monitor him, conspiracy theories persist. Americans who believe in their justice system assert that it is obvious that he was murdered, and that jailers could not possibly be so incompetent, cruel, or indifferent as to let such a high-profile prisoner commit suicide.
> Here, to help you evaluate that claim, are 32 short stories about in-custody deaths or near-deaths in America.
> These stories don’t mention Jeffrey Epstein, but they are about him. Epstein was incarcerated in the United States of America, and this is how the United States of America, the mightiest and richest nation there is or ever has been, treats incarcerated people. When you say, “There is no way that guards could be so reckless, so indifferent, so malicious as to just let someone as important as Epstein die,” this is how 32 Americans respond. Many, many more could respond in kind.
> A New York Times investigation published last year detailed this practice, under which federal prisons are so strapped for correctional officers that they regularly compel teachers, nurses, secretaries and other support staff members to step in. The practice has grown at some prisons as the Trump administration has curtailed the hiring of correctional officers.
> Many of these staff members only receive a few weeks’ training in correctional work, and, while required by contract to serve as substitutes, are often uncomfortable in the roles.
> Union officials said that for more than a year officials in Washington had been made aware of a severe staffing shortage at the facility in the wake of a federal hiring freeze. One of the guards on the unit where Mr. Epstein died had been working overtime for five straight days, while the other had been forced to work overtime that day, a union official said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/nyregion/epstein-barr.htm...
Here's another quote from Ken White, the criminal defense attorney I quoted above
> Jeffrey Epstein’s name and face are everywhere following his death. Even as an investigation reveals that the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where he died, was terminally short-staffed and relied on untrained guards who failed to monitor him, conspiracy theories persist. Americans who believe in their justice system assert that it is obvious that he was murdered, and that jailers could not possibly be so incompetent, cruel, or indifferent as to let such a high-profile prisoner commit suicide.
> Here, to help you evaluate that claim, are 32 short stories about in-custody deaths or near-deaths in America.
> These stories don’t mention Jeffrey Epstein, but they are about him. Epstein was incarcerated in the United States of America, and this is how the United States of America, the mightiest and richest nation there is or ever has been, treats incarcerated people. When you say, “There is no way that guards could be so reckless, so indifferent, so malicious as to just let someone as important as Epstein die,” this is how 32 Americans respond. Many, many more could respond in kind.
Those are legitimate observations, but so is CamperBob's. I have first hand experience of how bad the carceral system can be, but the fact of that awfulness doesn't mitigate the oddness of a very high profile prisoner just falling through the cracks.
The whole thesis here is that what happened to Epstein could happen to anyone, but that's not true. Most people are not billionaires with 24-7 access to the best lawyers in the world and extraordinary leverage over some of the most powerful people in the world. The implicit subtext here is that Epstein is just another human that got chewed up in a system that's generally indifferent if not outright hostile to human life. But people in jail are not mindless components in a dysfunctional system. They still have agency and respond to incentives and are mostly intensely interested in each other, not least because of the inhospitality of the system. They have newspapers and TV in jail, and I very sure that everyone in there was very aware of who their new neighbor was.
The whole thesis here is that what happened to Epstein could happen to anyone, but that's not true. Most people are not billionaires with 24-7 access to the best lawyers in the world and extraordinary leverage over some of the most powerful people in the world. The implicit subtext here is that Epstein is just another human that got chewed up in a system that's generally indifferent if not outright hostile to human life. But people in jail are not mindless components in a dysfunctional system. They still have agency and respond to incentives and are mostly intensely interested in each other, not least because of the inhospitality of the system. They have newspapers and TV in jail, and I very sure that everyone in there was very aware of who their new neighbor was.
Epstein had a lot of advantages, but they weren't enough to buy him a luxurious prison experience. He paid off other prisoners and exploited loopholes, but was still in a spartan cell. The luxurious pay-for-play prisons in the news occasionally are generally municipal prisons; Eppstein was in federal pretrial detention which is much harder to game.
When he died Epstein was in a cell in the Special Housing Unit for uncooperative prisoners. He clearly wasn't able to buy better treatment from the government. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/real-scand...)
> Jeffrey Epstein, inmate 76318-054, hated his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. It was cramped, dank and infested with vermin, so Mr. Epstein, long accustomed to using his wealth to play by his own rules, devised a way out.
> He paid numerous lawyers to visit the jail for as many as 12 hours a day, giving him the right to see them in a private meeting room ... he and his entourage regularly emptied the two vending machines of drinks and snacks.
> “It was shift work, all designed by someone who had infinite resources to try and get as much comfort as possible,” said a lawyer who was often in the jail visiting clients.
> Outside the meeting room, Mr. Epstein mounted a strategy to avoid being preyed upon by other inmates: He deposited money in their commissary accounts, according to a consultant who is often in the jail and speaks regularly with inmates there.
> But in his final days, Mr. Epstein’s efforts to lessen the misery of incarceration seemed to be faltering.
> He was seldom bathing, his hair and beard were unkempt and he was sleeping on the floor of his cell instead of on his bunk bed, according to people at the jail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/nyregion/epstein-suicide-...
When he died Epstein was in a cell in the Special Housing Unit for uncooperative prisoners. He clearly wasn't able to buy better treatment from the government. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/real-scand...)
> Jeffrey Epstein, inmate 76318-054, hated his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. It was cramped, dank and infested with vermin, so Mr. Epstein, long accustomed to using his wealth to play by his own rules, devised a way out.
> He paid numerous lawyers to visit the jail for as many as 12 hours a day, giving him the right to see them in a private meeting room ... he and his entourage regularly emptied the two vending machines of drinks and snacks.
> “It was shift work, all designed by someone who had infinite resources to try and get as much comfort as possible,” said a lawyer who was often in the jail visiting clients.
> Outside the meeting room, Mr. Epstein mounted a strategy to avoid being preyed upon by other inmates: He deposited money in their commissary accounts, according to a consultant who is often in the jail and speaks regularly with inmates there.
> But in his final days, Mr. Epstein’s efforts to lessen the misery of incarceration seemed to be faltering.
> He was seldom bathing, his hair and beard were unkempt and he was sleeping on the floor of his cell instead of on his bunk bed, according to people at the jail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/nyregion/epstein-suicide-...
> Epstein had a lot of advantages, but they weren't enough to buy him a luxurious prison experience.
Like his 2008 prison sentence right?
Like his 2008 prison sentence right?
Exactly. In response to the outrage over his 2008 prison sentence, he was treated much harsher and more in-line with other "regular" prisoners the second time he was imprisoned.
This is totally nonresponsive.
Once again, that's a general statement that doesn't apply here. Rest assured that heads will roll/have already rolled over this.
You are completely right I made a general argument. I didn't say that Epstein must have committed suicide. I said that an argument based in the idea that Epstein was treated in a shockingly irregular manner ignores the state of the US justice system.
As to heads rolling, the low-level guards in charge of watching Epstein are on unpaid leave and under investigation. The head of the Bureau of Prisons has been demoted to his previous job as the head of a department in the bureau of prisons. I wouldn't call that accountability.
As to heads rolling, the low-level guards in charge of watching Epstein are on unpaid leave and under investigation. The head of the Bureau of Prisons has been demoted to his previous job as the head of a department in the bureau of prisons. I wouldn't call that accountability.
Speaking of heads rolling:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/us/jeffrey-epstein-guard-char...
Not defending these people, mind you, or anyone involved. Just saying that either some shenanigans were afoot, or Epstein found himself at the center of an astonishing vortex of stupidity and carelessness, the likes of which is seldom seen in government or anywhere else. It's easier to imagine Barney Fife at Nuremberg.
Whether the people responsible were designated patsies or garden-variety lazy dumbasses, they are not in for a good time.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/us/jeffrey-epstein-guard-char...
Not defending these people, mind you, or anyone involved. Just saying that either some shenanigans were afoot, or Epstein found himself at the center of an astonishing vortex of stupidity and carelessness, the likes of which is seldom seen in government or anywhere else. It's easier to imagine Barney Fife at Nuremberg.
Whether the people responsible were designated patsies or garden-variety lazy dumbasses, they are not in for a good time.
My argument is that the federal prison system outrageously mistreats detainees as a matter of course. Limited evidence suggests employees in the prison he was in habitually falsified reporting to get out of work. I'm done with this thread now, but I'd encourage you to read the Slate article I linked to.
One of the articles that I linked to earlier in this thread is an interview with an academic who said she'd been trying to draw attention to the outrageous mistreatment of the detainees in that prison for years and thought it was really a shame that it took something happening to someone as famous as Epstein for it to be covered in the news.
All my point was was that you can't use the fact that he was treated outrageously badly by the guards to prove that it was a conspiracy. What happened to Epstein should be taken as a wake-up call for us to reform our judicial system.
One of the articles that I linked to earlier in this thread is an interview with an academic who said she'd been trying to draw attention to the outrageous mistreatment of the detainees in that prison for years and thought it was really a shame that it took something happening to someone as famous as Epstein for it to be covered in the news.
All my point was was that you can't use the fact that he was treated outrageously badly by the guards to prove that it was a conspiracy. What happened to Epstein should be taken as a wake-up call for us to reform our judicial system.
parent is talking about publicity though. The case is so high profile and mysterious it's worthy of at least one hollywood drama.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. "Epstein didn't kill himself" is still a meme. That proves there's a market for the Epstein news, IMO. The public absolutely cares. Plus, there's evidence it's being swept under the rug: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/leaked-fo...
I'm hindsight, it's obvious that an interview like that should have been aired. But it makes total sense not to air something so inflammatory back then with corroborating evidence. It would have sounded pretty outlandish. A girl says she was made a sex slave by a guy named Epstein that didn't really have a public profile and she was forced to sleep with the prince of Wales.
As a journalist, you need impeccible sources and evidence to back your story up before you publish something like that.
As a journalist, you need impeccible sources and evidence to back your story up before you publish something like that.
Sadly it is not that outlandish. The Duke of York (not Prince of Wales) was famous int eh 1980s for his louche lifestyle and there has been a veritable string of scandals revealing numerous highly respected public figures in the UK to have sordid lives of criminal abuse away from the public gaze over the last 20 years.
Of course it would be a tricky story for any journalist, editor, or publisher to handle, not least due to Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel laws. But outlandish? Not at all.
'Outlandish' are things like Prince Andrew's claim that a war injury caused him to completely stop sweating for several years and that this provides a watertight* alibi against his accuser's allegations.
* I couldn't help myself
Of course it would be a tricky story for any journalist, editor, or publisher to handle, not least due to Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel laws. But outlandish? Not at all.
'Outlandish' are things like Prince Andrew's claim that a war injury caused him to completely stop sweating for several years and that this provides a watertight* alibi against his accuser's allegations.
* I couldn't help myself
That's not as outlandish as it could be, correct? That is unusual, but would you say outlandish? Perhaps irregular, but not 'outlandish'...
I also couldn't help myself. If you haven't been following the impeachment hearings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sezBhcnSxI0
I also couldn't help myself. If you haven't been following the impeachment hearings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sezBhcnSxI0
Epstein absolutely had a massive public profile when this story would have aired. When he was first arrested there were many stories about him. There were multiple witnesses and mountains of credible evidence. It was a cover up plain and simple.
> prince of Wales
Andrew is the Duke of York, not Prince of Wales - that's Charles.
Andrew is the Duke of York, not Prince of Wales - that's Charles.
I stand corrected. Don't even know the difference. I think every time I hear 'prince' for English royalty, I just automatically think "Prince of Wales.
I'll take the downvotes, but if he's American like I am, we fought pretty hard to not ever have to care about royal distinctions ;)
(Although... I didn't know that, I wasn't really sure what Andrew's relation in position was to Charles)
(Although... I didn't know that, I wasn't really sure what Andrew's relation in position was to Charles)
>> you need impeccible sources
No problem: just hire Fusion GPS to write a "dossier". A source so "impeccible" that you can write about it for years in spite of there being not a shred of truth in it.
No problem: just hire Fusion GPS to write a "dossier". A source so "impeccible" that you can write about it for years in spite of there being not a shred of truth in it.
I enjoy the "Epstein didn't kill himself" meme as it encompasses both ideas.
Popular, he was murdered to be silenced from his handlers.
Unpopular, he is still alive and living somewhere in secret.
However if the meme was changed a little bit, even to "Who killed Epstein?" that would omit the 2nd more unpopular theory altogether.
Popular, he was murdered to be silenced from his handlers.
Unpopular, he is still alive and living somewhere in secret.
However if the meme was changed a little bit, even to "Who killed Epstein?" that would omit the 2nd more unpopular theory altogether.
I liked how I saw it explained here. That the Epstein murder is our generations largest admission from the elite class that they not only exist but the rules definitely do not apply to them.
I think the Epstein memes are definitely something people of every ideology enjoy.
I think the Epstein memes are definitely something people of every ideology enjoy.
Since the media won't properly cover the story, memes are the only way the public has to keep it from being swept under the rug.
> That the Epstein murder is our generations largest admission from the elite class that they not only exist but the rules definitely do not apply to them.
Couldn't agree more, thankfully the internet is throwing a wrench into the plan. Even if it's unclear that justice will ultimately be served.
> That the Epstein murder is our generations largest admission from the elite class that they not only exist but the rules definitely do not apply to them.
Couldn't agree more, thankfully the internet is throwing a wrench into the plan. Even if it's unclear that justice will ultimately be served.
My personal favorite was the same_spiderman.jpg with Spiderman multiplied a few times with the Photoshop clone tool titled "All the billionaires who want to kill Epstein"
I think because you easily provided the proof they were wrong, as evidenced by an article published by the media about how it's not being addressed publicly to the public's satisfaction.
It's too common to treat the media as a homogeneous entity rather than a fractured and variable group.
It's too common to treat the media as a homogeneous entity rather than a fractured and variable group.
From what I read the hack was not sophisticated at all. If they had decent endpoint protection this would not have happened. Maybe they disabled defender after the initial access and privesc because defender blocks Get-Keystrokes and other things in empire,even with significant modification.
Anyway, I don't care about the hacktivism and propaganda (don't really get it -- tbh,rich people bad/corrupt?) But would very much be interested in any post-incident analysis of what happend.
But here's what stands out to me: they're talking about using empire and hvnc. Empire is by design detectable,you could use the techniques in empire in your own malware though. Most rats and bots (take trickbot) let you sniff key strokes, run commands,etc... So I guess they used psexec or winrm to access the hosts(no vlan segmentation or firewall on endpoints!?). I ask all this because the specific MO is significantly different than what is seen with criminal actors and crimeware(like Carbank which She mentions). And to me, it does corroborate the story that this was likely an independent hacker motivated by hacktivism as opposed to a bigger conspiracy to burn some group and plant false records in the leak (which could still less likely be the case)
Very exciting,righteous hack.
I think overall, the bank cheaped out on IT and paid big time for it.
Anyway, I don't care about the hacktivism and propaganda (don't really get it -- tbh,rich people bad/corrupt?) But would very much be interested in any post-incident analysis of what happend.
But here's what stands out to me: they're talking about using empire and hvnc. Empire is by design detectable,you could use the techniques in empire in your own malware though. Most rats and bots (take trickbot) let you sniff key strokes, run commands,etc... So I guess they used psexec or winrm to access the hosts(no vlan segmentation or firewall on endpoints!?). I ask all this because the specific MO is significantly different than what is seen with criminal actors and crimeware(like Carbank which She mentions). And to me, it does corroborate the story that this was likely an independent hacker motivated by hacktivism as opposed to a bigger conspiracy to burn some group and plant false records in the leak (which could still less likely be the case)
Very exciting,righteous hack.
I think overall, the bank cheaped out on IT and paid big time for it.
Here's the thing. While most people on HN tend to be in the global top performers when it comes to IT, the vast majority of businesses are simply ripe, low hanging fruit just waiting to be breached, and almost every time it is because of a failure of management to understand the importance of those things. Way too many 60 year old men who barely know how to use a computer are at the top of orgs, and are stuck in the janitorial cost sink fallacy of IT. I also put a lot of this on the heads of IT directors or senior sysadmins, who are failing to convey the importance of the matter to those C-levels in terms they understand.
I have learned this the hard way, having started up an MSP at one point and done a lot of contracting to help orgs unfuck their infra, I have seen it all first hand, from 5-30 person lawfirms to fortune 500 oil companies to unicorn startups. I have been the senior sysadmin who failed to convey things in a way the got through C-level thick skulls, and most of my career trajectory has been angled towards keeping up with the sysadmin transition to devops while learning how to fill that gap so I don't repeat those mistakes. I've failed multiple times, but each one is a lesson I learn from and try to apply to the next place, and sometimes C-levels literally just don't care and can't be reached, and nothing happens till a major breach or lawsuit costs lots of money.
To me, this is the importance of the CTO/CIO roles. The problem is, again, the vast majority of America isn't SV. I would say ~%80 of companies I saw didn't even have those roles, and if they had someone in that role but without the title (like IT director), they often didn't have a seat on the board or any real influence with the C's. I have also seen those roles taken by people who should be in other positions but enjoy the "C" title too much, to the detriment of the org.
Sorry, this got kind of ranty, but it's an issue I obsess over in trying to find better solutions for. Basically I'm learning how to hack management instead of computers these days.
I have learned this the hard way, having started up an MSP at one point and done a lot of contracting to help orgs unfuck their infra, I have seen it all first hand, from 5-30 person lawfirms to fortune 500 oil companies to unicorn startups. I have been the senior sysadmin who failed to convey things in a way the got through C-level thick skulls, and most of my career trajectory has been angled towards keeping up with the sysadmin transition to devops while learning how to fill that gap so I don't repeat those mistakes. I've failed multiple times, but each one is a lesson I learn from and try to apply to the next place, and sometimes C-levels literally just don't care and can't be reached, and nothing happens till a major breach or lawsuit costs lots of money.
To me, this is the importance of the CTO/CIO roles. The problem is, again, the vast majority of America isn't SV. I would say ~%80 of companies I saw didn't even have those roles, and if they had someone in that role but without the title (like IT director), they often didn't have a seat on the board or any real influence with the C's. I have also seen those roles taken by people who should be in other positions but enjoy the "C" title too much, to the detriment of the org.
Sorry, this got kind of ranty, but it's an issue I obsess over in trying to find better solutions for. Basically I'm learning how to hack management instead of computers these days.
> I also put a lot of this on the heads of IT directors or senior sysadmins, who are failing to convey the importance of the matter to those C-levels in terms they understand.
Why? Understanding the risks involved before making a decision is the responsibility of executives. If they calculate that the risks are minimal and crackers prove them wrong by causing damage to the tune of millions, they have only themselves to blame.
How many times have people explained the need for things to be done properly, only for proper infrastructure to be written off as too costly and unnecessary? The fact is they are taking a calculated risk: they get to spend less on information security by assuming nothing bad will happen. Claiming that it's the fault of system administrators is just yet another power move: scapegoating in order to avoid responsibility.
They make the decisions and should face the consequences.
Why? Understanding the risks involved before making a decision is the responsibility of executives. If they calculate that the risks are minimal and crackers prove them wrong by causing damage to the tune of millions, they have only themselves to blame.
How many times have people explained the need for things to be done properly, only for proper infrastructure to be written off as too costly and unnecessary? The fact is they are taking a calculated risk: they get to spend less on information security by assuming nothing bad will happen. Claiming that it's the fault of system administrators is just yet another power move: scapegoating in order to avoid responsibility.
They make the decisions and should face the consequences.
I'm torn on this one, because for years I took your position... but there were numerable times I saw directors/seniors fail to convey that information in an understandable way when the C's might have been open to it when presented differently. There are certain cases were the C's don't listen at all, and theres not much that can be done, but there are also cases where the C's just haven't been presented the information properly.
This is why I am increasingly putting importance on the skills of the Director or CTO/CIO position, because they need to be the kind of person who can handle the board/meeting room but still understand the tech enough to a) not be fooled or lied to and b) understand the real business risks and weigh them properly while overseeing the implementation of solutions.
So I understand and am sympathetic to your point, but I think there is a lot more nuance there. Yes, ultimately the buck stops at the C's, but as the sysadmin who has failed to talk to them well, I still feel like we could do a much better job on our end. This is why I think a lot of more senior devs/ops types of people could do extremely well in the C positions if they got their MBA and had a C-level mentor. Trying to do the opposite, where you try to tech-ize a traditional MBA C-type fails much more often in my opinion, but, that's who dominates those positions. I see market opportunity!
This is why I am increasingly putting importance on the skills of the Director or CTO/CIO position, because they need to be the kind of person who can handle the board/meeting room but still understand the tech enough to a) not be fooled or lied to and b) understand the real business risks and weigh them properly while overseeing the implementation of solutions.
So I understand and am sympathetic to your point, but I think there is a lot more nuance there. Yes, ultimately the buck stops at the C's, but as the sysadmin who has failed to talk to them well, I still feel like we could do a much better job on our end. This is why I think a lot of more senior devs/ops types of people could do extremely well in the C positions if they got their MBA and had a C-level mentor. Trying to do the opposite, where you try to tech-ize a traditional MBA C-type fails much more often in my opinion, but, that's who dominates those positions. I see market opportunity!
>> (don't really get it -- tbh,rich people bad/corrupt?)
it's not so much that wealth is bad, but tax evasion and money laundering (from organized crime, corruption, etc.) is bad.
it's not so much that wealth is bad, but tax evasion and money laundering (from organized crime, corruption, etc.) is bad.
The future of the species is literally imperiled right now because we've allowed rich people to hoard wealth, so that's a reason to care.
Really? I thought governments had a lot more, like trillions more. I thought the quality of life for humanity has never been better than now? Do you mean climate change? If so how does rich people's greed fit in the picture.
I don't think they should hoard cash, there should be a limit on that but net worth usually includea stock value, wealth in form of stocks is far from hoarding. I think cash wealth limits and a legal limit on pay gap would help but I still don't see the rich do anything they haven't done throughout history. If anything, democraric processes and institutions are failing the people.
I don't think they should hoard cash, there should be a limit on that but net worth usually includea stock value, wealth in form of stocks is far from hoarding. I think cash wealth limits and a legal limit on pay gap would help but I still don't see the rich do anything they haven't done throughout history. If anything, democraric processes and institutions are failing the people.
You must be rich to talk like that. Rich people generally emit a f#ckton of co2 and worse, they do not use their wealth to try to mitigate it, thereby condemning their own children.
Not rich, not poor.
You're generalizing and stereotyping. If what you say is true then it seems your law makers are failing to implement laws that curtail CO2 emissions by rich people?
People can do anything legal with their money, if it shouldn't be allowed why is it legal? It seems you're taking a morao high ground against the rich, which is fine so long as you realize rich people are not above the law and even if they control civilian governments they don't control the military (at least not at non-admin levels) so democratic societies still have a lot of power. You also have to consider how just india and china generate emissions that eclipse the US but most billionaires are in the US. So it might feel nice to blame the rich and please don't let me get in the way but I don't see how fixing wealth inequality even makes a small dent on climate change. Mind you, publicly traded corps benefit the rich but their policy making is entirely designed to benefit shareholders as a whole.
I don't care who is to blame,show me solutions not a person to blame.
You're generalizing and stereotyping. If what you say is true then it seems your law makers are failing to implement laws that curtail CO2 emissions by rich people?
People can do anything legal with their money, if it shouldn't be allowed why is it legal? It seems you're taking a morao high ground against the rich, which is fine so long as you realize rich people are not above the law and even if they control civilian governments they don't control the military (at least not at non-admin levels) so democratic societies still have a lot of power. You also have to consider how just india and china generate emissions that eclipse the US but most billionaires are in the US. So it might feel nice to blame the rich and please don't let me get in the way but I don't see how fixing wealth inequality even makes a small dent on climate change. Mind you, publicly traded corps benefit the rich but their policy making is entirely designed to benefit shareholders as a whole.
I don't care who is to blame,show me solutions not a person to blame.
Oh yes, they are failing, and I can explain you why. We are in a deadlock in my country regarding elected representatives because the baby boomers vote and they are in greater number than us youngs, so the policy will always be conservative and economically liberal. Basically old conservatives control our future even if they have less life remaining than us on this Earth. (That's how I conceived a new democratic process by the way - amount of votes = number of years remaining in your life expectancy. Maybe a first solution offered to you to give younglings a chance about their future ?). Democracies do have power, but they lack a lot of will.
Add to that lobbies and economic agents controlling elected officials so they keep believing in the eternal growth lullaby, and yes - they ARE failing to implement laws that curtail CO2 emissions by rich people/powerful corporations. I really don't see how that's surprising or subject to debate - everything observable around us is in favor of this argument.
I'm not taking a moral high ground, the problem is systemic and I don't accuse anyone in particular. Rich people, not above the law ? Yeah... I won't answer that because I don't believe it to be true, but I cannot formally prove it.
Oh we do have solutions but you wouldn't like those. Carbon taxes, unlawful to eat meat besides on weekends, mandatory carbon offset of long-distance and/or plane trips, unlawful to advertise in public spaces and I have a whole lot more for you - but they will never get implemented ;)
Add to that lobbies and economic agents controlling elected officials so they keep believing in the eternal growth lullaby, and yes - they ARE failing to implement laws that curtail CO2 emissions by rich people/powerful corporations. I really don't see how that's surprising or subject to debate - everything observable around us is in favor of this argument.
I'm not taking a moral high ground, the problem is systemic and I don't accuse anyone in particular. Rich people, not above the law ? Yeah... I won't answer that because I don't believe it to be true, but I cannot formally prove it.
Oh we do have solutions but you wouldn't like those. Carbon taxes, unlawful to eat meat besides on weekends, mandatory carbon offset of long-distance and/or plane trips, unlawful to advertise in public spaces and I have a whole lot more for you - but they will never get implemented ;)
oh, so it's all the global poor who are coordinating their efforts to reduce emissions of companies they don't own or operate?
thanks for clearing that up!
thanks for clearing that up!
The global poor don't get to choose. When the choice is firewood or not being able to cook and stay warm, you use firewood.
When the choice is find some way to stay entertained without taking quarterly vacations on CO2 generating flights to expensive getaways or keep polluting somehow no one bats an eyelid.
When the choice is find some way to stay entertained without taking quarterly vacations on CO2 generating flights to expensive getaways or keep polluting somehow no one bats an eyelid.
There aren't enough rich people to compete with commercial airliner's emissions. Cruise ships are HUGE emittors(they even get around emissions control laws) for example but the western middle class is their user not the rich or poor.
You realize the first-world middle class taking cruises is as much a part of the rich as billionaires right?
A yearly salary of something like 32k puts you in the global 1% of earners. I won't be so strict about the definition of the rich, but families having money for cruises are definitely part of the demographic I'm speaking to.
And I mean, vacations is are just the tip of the iceberg, those people so poor they have to use firewood go survive, aren't the reason we have so many commercial airliners shuttling around goods so we can have the latest throwaway item we desire in 48hrs or less.
A yearly salary of something like 32k puts you in the global 1% of earners. I won't be so strict about the definition of the rich, but families having money for cruises are definitely part of the demographic I'm speaking to.
And I mean, vacations is are just the tip of the iceberg, those people so poor they have to use firewood go survive, aren't the reason we have so many commercial airliners shuttling around goods so we can have the latest throwaway item we desire in 48hrs or less.
Being the global 1% earner means nothing in this context. Income is measured against context of currency. A USD can indeed buy a lot but perhaps housing is a lot cheaper in subsaharan africa than Manhattan? Same for food and other expenses? Regardless of their place in the world, being rich is only significant to how much expendible money you have left after accounting for neccessities. Even in america, $80k/yr can mean you're doing great if you live in some no name suburb or small town but you're lucky if you break even with that in NYC.
Your firewood analogies are sensetionalist but do not answer my question of how even if western civilization vanished over night climate change would be resolved? Perhaps delayed by a few decades. I would even say it might get worse due to undeveloped countries desire to compete with minimal costs and inability to create nuclear power or afford wind turbine farms,solar,etc... When oil,charcol and old cars are already affordable.
Your firewood analogies are sensetionalist but do not answer my question of how even if western civilization vanished over night climate change would be resolved? Perhaps delayed by a few decades. I would even say it might get worse due to undeveloped countries desire to compete with minimal costs and inability to create nuclear power or afford wind turbine farms,solar,etc... When oil,charcol and old cars are already affordable.
You spent a whole paragraph arguing a point invalidated in the next sentence when I point out I'm not using the 1% criteria, but rather the fact you have enough disposable income for a cruise (yes, financing it counts)
And my firewood "analogy" is sensationalist?
Is that a joke or are you just that out of touch with the reality of the actual poor.
My parents grew up in those conditions, and even as recently as the last few years we've had family members back home in that situation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/16degrees.h...
-
Your second paragraph is non sequitur. You didn't ask that question or even imply it!
If your point of your screed there is climate change is not worth fighting, it's not a unique viewpoint.
What a terrible thing if we were to come up with less polluting ways of living for no real benefit huh?
And my firewood "analogy" is sensationalist?
Is that a joke or are you just that out of touch with the reality of the actual poor.
My parents grew up in those conditions, and even as recently as the last few years we've had family members back home in that situation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/16degrees.h...
-
Your second paragraph is non sequitur. You didn't ask that question or even imply it!
If your point of your screed there is climate change is not worth fighting, it's not a unique viewpoint.
What a terrible thing if we were to come up with less polluting ways of living for no real benefit huh?
Goverments are more accountable than rich individuals.
Elon Musk is a great example of how consolidated wealth an individual has can have a large impact on outcomes.
It's not all bad news, but there are things going on with consolidated wealth that are very concerning right now.
Elon Musk is a great example of how consolidated wealth an individual has can have a large impact on outcomes.
It's not all bad news, but there are things going on with consolidated wealth that are very concerning right now.
> privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful
To these people [the very rich], taxes are costs. And costs are there to be reduced, ideally to zero. [1]
[1] https://www.cumex-files.com/en/
[1] https://www.cumex-files.com/en/
A news article on it with more info and the full HackBack: https://unicornriot.ninja/2019/massive-hack-strikes-offshore...
Another related article: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb5agy/phineas-fisher-off....
offf, that scroll hack.
English translation here https://pastebin.com/8rXhtqgr
really great content!
really great content!
I’ve read the Pastebin and I wonder, where did they send the 200k to be able to cash them out without getting in trouble? I’ve always assumed that diverting electronic money is relatively easy, the hard part is to convert it to a physical or untraceable form without getting caught; I assume the receiving bank would have kept a record of the incoming transfer and what happened with that money afterwards.
Plenty of people on the darkweb allow for flushing of bank transfers to untraceable crypto currencies. Typical scenario: use an unknown (homeless, hacked account whatever) person to register bank account, send money to bank account, withdraw in cash or use digital service to convert to cryptocurrency. Money is gone and owner of bank account might not even know and can probably not be held responsible. The reason the hacker got caught was because he made invalid SWIFT transactions to accounts in Mexico and someone found out the reported errors and checked other transactions.
So what? People with billions don't get in trouble, as evidenced by the 2008 financial scam, er, I mean "crisis".
The kind of people who get in trouble is a mom stealing a pair of socks from Walmart. That, they will throw the book at. Hiding or stealing billions? No prob.
The kind of people who get in trouble is a mom stealing a pair of socks from Walmart. That, they will throw the book at. Hiding or stealing billions? No prob.
If someone could tell me what country ownes the Tbills in the caymans (https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt), i'd really appreciate it.
You know it's a good, firey HN debate when you have to scroll down about 3/4 of the page to find the 1st comment thats not a child, chained off the top comment! :)
Oh good, I forgot my account number. Can someone DM it to me?
[deleted]
The read up is very interesting but I don't understand the Sonic Wall VPN exploit and how they planted the keylogger in the first place.
Was it an inside job?
Was it an inside job?
[deleted]
Oooh Cayman islands, that one must be juicy
Like a Mr Robot sub plot
Where could I download!
Search through twitter, there is a torrent as well.
Link is on their website, just click though
Reading this, it all seems so doable. Banks must indeed be getting hacked on a daily basis, it's just that they hide it so well!
[deleted]
Oops.
Consider this holocaust survivor.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/16/holocaust-surviv...
His family is murdered by Nazis but he escapes to the UK. He sets up offshore funds in the event something like the holocaust happens again, but the tax authorities go after him.
This is one of many reasons for people to set up offshore accounts that have nothing to do with illegal activities.
How many people like this has this person hurt?
Where does this belief in the infallibility of the tax man come from?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/16/holocaust-surviv...
His family is murdered by Nazis but he escapes to the UK. He sets up offshore funds in the event something like the holocaust happens again, but the tax authorities go after him.
This is one of many reasons for people to set up offshore accounts that have nothing to do with illegal activities.
How many people like this has this person hurt?
Where does this belief in the infallibility of the tax man come from?
Pay your taxes and you can keep them as far away from any shore as you like.
And I don't really see why you feel the need to invoke the Holocaust in this manner? You're just using it as a sympathetic reason to justify tax evasion. Could I also rob some banks with that justification?
And I don't really see why you feel the need to invoke the Holocaust in this manner? You're just using it as a sympathetic reason to justify tax evasion. Could I also rob some banks with that justification?
> How many people like this has this person hurt?
Could be for an holocaust fund, Bezos secret birthday party fund or for your new 4k TV it's all the same, pay your taxes, then do whatever you want with your money. It really isn't that complex.
Could be for an holocaust fund, Bezos secret birthday party fund or for your new 4k TV it's all the same, pay your taxes, then do whatever you want with your money. It really isn't that complex.
You seem to be conflating people keeping money in offshore accounts with cheating on taxes. Some people who have offshore accounts probably cheat. Other people are not cheating. The referenced person was not cheating, and, not that he needed it, he had a very good reason for having the offshore accounts.
Hacking in and publicizing peoples offshore account information hurts both groups. It's irresponsible. It hurts people who pay their taxes and are not doing anything wrong. If a government went in and, without any due process, started convicting people just because they had an offshore account, we would not be praising that government.
Hacking in and publicizing peoples offshore account information hurts both groups. It's irresponsible. It hurts people who pay their taxes and are not doing anything wrong. If a government went in and, without any due process, started convicting people just because they had an offshore account, we would not be praising that government.
Although I will always be curious why countries are letting those small, insignificant islands and countries manage all this wealth, and why they're trusted to do it. This can't be secure or safe. I'm curious about the diplomacy and the political implications of this.
What if their office get robbed? What if the island gets attacked? What if one of those shady bank defaults? What if one of the people who manage it suddenly die? I mean apparently there is a long list of why it's risky, and I don't understand how this is even legal at all. How do you wire all this money to such a small place, and how can they trust so few people to hide so much money? I have so many questions.