News that makes you say WTF! (75 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ford Prefect
- Start date
you can achieve that in different ways. if you optimize your taxes, that's fine both legally and morally. if you "work the system" just to avoid higher taxes in your country, especially when you're the prime minister, that has an other message. btw in hungary "non transparent" (=offshore) companies are limited when it comes to receiving funds from eu projects, and also the state (via the national tax authorities) have the right to say that an offshore company should pay local taxes if it's proven that the company is managed from hungary. (sorry for my basic english, i hope it makes sense.)
anyway, i'm no expert in icelandic legal questions, so i don't know if the pm did anything illegal. i just know that in hungary, the land of corruption and shady politicians, it is strictly prohibited for any member of the parliament to hold a share in or be involved with offshore companies. (they usually do this via middlemen...)
edit: i just read this. it's in hungarian, so just to sum it up: the wife of a politician was mentioned in the panama papers, so today the politician confessed that he was aware of his wife's ownership, consequently left all of his positions in his party and will face an investigation.
btw this is where that politician's home is: https://www.google.hu/maps/place/Frigyes+krt.+35,+Salg%C3%B3tarj%C3%A1n,+3104/@48.0743506,19.7770125,3a,75y,22h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHqFWiZrgCJDY0ZlkqxuFYg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DHqFWiZrgCJDY0ZlkqxuFYg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D313.38293%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x47401330c3f8f1af:0xd2421a6b96ff0c01!6m1!1e1?hl=hu
edit2:
http://www.reuters.com/article/panama-tax-chile-idUSL2N1771Z1
offshore vs transparency
------
a football related article:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...s-become-enmeshed-in-offshore-world-1.2595555
anyway, i'm no expert in icelandic legal questions, so i don't know if the pm did anything illegal. i just know that in hungary, the land of corruption and shady politicians, it is strictly prohibited for any member of the parliament to hold a share in or be involved with offshore companies. (they usually do this via middlemen...)
edit: i just read this. it's in hungarian, so just to sum it up: the wife of a politician was mentioned in the panama papers, so today the politician confessed that he was aware of his wife's ownership, consequently left all of his positions in his party and will face an investigation.
btw this is where that politician's home is: https://www.google.hu/maps/place/Frigyes+krt.+35,+Salg%C3%B3tarj%C3%A1n,+3104/@48.0743506,19.7770125,3a,75y,22h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHqFWiZrgCJDY0ZlkqxuFYg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DHqFWiZrgCJDY0ZlkqxuFYg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D313.38293%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x47401330c3f8f1af:0xd2421a6b96ff0c01!6m1!1e1?hl=hu
edit2:
http://www.reuters.com/article/panama-tax-chile-idUSL2N1771Z1
offshore vs transparency
------
a football related article:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...s-become-enmeshed-in-offshore-world-1.2595555
Yup.
Tax avoidance is not meant to be legal too. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to close down all loopholes from a technical point of view.
And I'm actually surprised that you've got such a naive outlook on our political system Seven. Public opinion doesn't equal to a legal code by default. I mean yeah, it is not a topic that moves the masses enough as to riot in the streets, but that doesn't mean that it's supported by the majority in any way.
Tax avoidance is not meant to be legal too. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to close down all loopholes from a technical point of view.
And I'm actually surprised that you've got such a naive outlook on our political system Seven. Public opinion doesn't equal to a legal code by default. I mean yeah, it is not a topic that moves the masses enough as to riot in the streets, but that doesn't mean that it's supported by the majority in any way.
You present this case as if it is something very complex and difficult. And it very well might be, but the essence of it is very simple: they exploit offshore tax regimes. This isn't new by any stretch of the imagination. I bet that if you were to go outside right now and ask the first random passerby what he'd do to avoid paying taxes this is exactly what he'll say.
And as long as we're talking about morality: it is just vicious and coldhearted to try and punish people for something that isn't considered criminal or illegal. Belgian politicians are now coming out saying they'll try to to make those who avoid taxes pay and even punish them. That goes against the very essence of all criminal and tax law and is exactly the sort of behaviour we have all long agreed upon is unacceptable.
Yeah you shouldn't punish them through the legal system or make them pay fines (as long as they actually followed the law, which to my impression dubious in some of the cases, but that's not the point). That would go against the basic principle of our Rechtsstaat.
But especially politicians should be questioned by the public for their involvement. Look at it this way, if a politician changes his stances 180 degress every few weeks, it's not by any means illegal - but he should be questioned about what the fuck he's doing by journalists and probably lose a lot of voters (insert bad joke about all politicians being guilty of that anyways).
Or if a company treats its employees like complete shit, strictly within the legals limits, it is perfectly okay for papers to run stories about them highlighting the issue and for customers to avoid buying the products of that company.
There are so many issues which are in my opinion unethical, also unethical in the opinion of the majority, but not illegal.
But especially politicians should be questioned by the public for their involvement. Look at it this way, if a politician changes his stances 180 degress every few weeks, it's not by any means illegal - but he should be questioned about what the fuck he's doing by journalists and probably lose a lot of voters (insert bad joke about all politicians being guilty of that anyways).
Or if a company treats its employees like complete shit, strictly within the legals limits, it is perfectly okay for papers to run stories about them highlighting the issue and for customers to avoid buying the products of that company.
There are so many issues which are in my opinion unethical, also unethical in the opinion of the majority, but not illegal.
Well. With politicians it becomes an issue. Because clearly they are supposed to serve the public. You could make the case that it is hypocritical of a politician to use offshore accounts. Whether or not it is unethical is still up for debate imo. What exactly is the ethical nature of tax? Is it that you should give away part of what you earn to help others? Because I can assure you that most of these people already pay more taxes than the average joe, even if they avoid some taxes.
Rather than focussing who did what I'd like to get a fairer tax system. Something that actually comes close to helping our society. And perhaps the time has come to start experimenting in this field too. Clearly we experiment with medicine. Why not do it here too? Today it seems as if everyone is disgruntled.
I'm not here to be tested on what taxes are about 
You don't approve of taxation, i do. The spirit of the law is the core of what the law is about and each individual is morally required to try his/her best to rationalize the law and make it the best and closet to its ideal state. Can we punish an individual who has defeated the spirit of the law but conformed to its letter? No. Is this individual a jerk? Absolutely.
wow!
It's not really all that but it doesn't matter because we usually don't punish you for doing something that is not illegal. You will be however judged by the public opinion. The law that allows men to marry four wives is a case in point. The law came to existence for a reason that is nonexistent today. It was not supposed to enable men to seek variety in their sexual life under the label of shariah and its definition of marriage. Now you can disregard the spirit of the law and take four wives legally but it makes you an asshole for exploiting a law that for one reason or another hasn't/cannot be improved.
According to you and Andy btw, i'm saying that because i'm jealous of successful men who can afford having four wives.
You don't approve of taxation, i do. The spirit of the law is the core of what the law is about and each individual is morally required to try his/her best to rationalize the law and make it the best and closet to its ideal state. Can we punish an individual who has defeated the spirit of the law but conformed to its letter? No. Is this individual a jerk? Absolutely.wow!
It's not really all that but it doesn't matter because we usually don't punish you for doing something that is not illegal. You will be however judged by the public opinion. The law that allows men to marry four wives is a case in point. The law came to existence for a reason that is nonexistent today. It was not supposed to enable men to seek variety in their sexual life under the label of shariah and its definition of marriage. Now you can disregard the spirit of the law and take four wives legally but it makes you an asshole for exploiting a law that for one reason or another hasn't/cannot be improved.
According to you and Andy btw, i'm saying that because i'm jealous of successful men who can afford having four wives.
I'm not here to be tested on what taxes are about You don't approve of taxation, i do. The spirit of the law is the core of what the law is about and each individual is morally required to try his/her best to rationalize the law and make it the best and closet to its ideal state. Can we punish an individual who has defeated the spirit of the law but conformed to its letter? No. Is this individual a jerk? Absolutely.
You don't approve of taxation, i do. The spirit of the law is the core of what the law is about and each individual is morally required to try his/her best to rationalize the law and make it the best and closet to its ideal state. Can we punish an individual who has defeated the spirit of the law but conformed to its letter? No. Is this individual a jerk? Absolutely.
Look, it’s this simple. If you have two separate toll roads owned by the same company that are equal in distance and time to your location, have limited traffic in both directions, but one is $10 cheaper than the other, you’re always going to take the cheaper option. Always. If not, you’re just an idiot. You’re paying into a system where you cannot trace where your money is actually appropriated to in any dollar amount, so this isn’t a matter of morality. The government isn't your god, if you don't believe in nay of the programs what is the moral argument for paying any taxes at all?
I have no idea, but I do know that once you're out of school you'll probably change your mind on this at least slightly.
I have no idea, but I do know that once you're out of school you'll probably change your mind on this at least slightly.
It's plain and simple actually why taxation should exist (whether the current system nears the idea behind it is irrelevant). The reason i refuse to answer his question is because he does know what the spirit of the law is when it comes to taxation. If i didn't feel strongly about it i wouldn't talk about it here.
I don't know if we agree on what expenditures are excessive but i absolutely agree that governments (may) have unnecessary spending that should be reduced and invested instead in meaningful issues that bring about greater welfare and equality (and i understand we disagree here). What i find strange about your stand on this specific Iceland case is that you are against excessive government spending, which in turn makes you find it clever to avoid taxes so that your tax money won't end up contributing to that excessive spending of the government, even if you are the head of the government himself?
I don't know if we agree on what expenditures are excessive but i absolutely agree that governments (may) have unnecessary spending that should be reduced and invested instead in meaningful issues that bring about greater welfare and equality (and i understand we disagree here). What i find strange about your stand on this specific Iceland case is that you are against excessive government spending, which in turn makes you find it clever to avoid taxes so that your tax money won't end up contributing to that excessive spending of the government, even if you are the head of the government himself?
I don't think it's the government's job to bring about equality imo that's a silly endeavour, as for my stance on taxes it has nothing to with my commentary on this issue, which started with a simple has he done anything illegal and i have yet to find IT besides allegations and morality tantrums. Finally, i really doubt you know my take on the spirit of the law for taxation legislation even less hpw it aligns with your vision. Point is we either choose the rule of law or the rule of public opinion sic 'morality'.
You're missing the point. It's easy to understand why taxation should exist. It is quite a bit more complex to say why certain things are taxed and others are not. What exactly is the spirit there? And how are we supposed to know that when certain things are not taxed, they are taxed in your 'spirit'?
This is exactly it. It doesn't have to be illegal for him to get questioned over it.
Look at every interviews politicians hold around the world, look at all the criticisms they face. How many of them are actually saying that the politician has broken the law?
It is only right for him to get questioned over tax avoidance, even if it has nothing to do with evasion (and in this case it even might be evasion, but that's not the point).
- - - Updated - - -
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/panama-papers-crimes/477156/
Good pice on the matter
Look at every interviews politicians hold around the world, look at all the criticisms they face. How many of them are actually saying that the politician has broken the law?
It is only right for him to get questioned over tax avoidance, even if it has nothing to do with evasion (and in this case it even might be evasion, but that's not the point).
- - - Updated - - -
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/panama-papers-crimes/477156/
Good pice on the matter
Once again, are we to be nations ruled by law or ethics? I'm sorry if I'm coming off a bit annoying here but it all seems rather childish to me, plus in the Iceland example it was his wife's money which she inherited why the hell should governments have a say in that in the first place, this type of taxation should be a lot more unethical and alarming than the circumventing of it imo
totally different matter, but being a moral question, still related: there's an ongoing scandal in hungary about the national coach of the swimmers. he's kiss lászló, 75, won tons of gold medals for the country in the last couple of decades, a generally respected figure, a swimming pool holds his name in százhalombatta (hungarian city), etc. but as revealed a couple of days ago, 50 years ago kiss was convicted for raping a fellow swimmer woman with 2 other swimmers (that's what you call a gang rape i guess). kiss served his sentence in prison 50 years ago. the board of the national swimming federation and the swimming scene were apparently aware of what happened decades ago, and still trusted him.
now, the public opinion is divided: should he resign immediately, or let's just leave a man who already served his sentence 50 years ago alone?
(btw he issued a press release, pleaded not guilty, said the trial was staged 50 years ago, and resigned)
Iceland first and foremost is a nation of free press and representative democracy. That means teh population needs to be informed about the politicians that represent it or strive to do so, and therefore those questions and criticisms are only just.
It is a nation of law (although those laws should be grounded in ethics), and no one is saying he should be incarcerated or persecuted by the legal system. But there are so many other mechanismy necessary to a functioning society than a functioning legal system, and this is one of them.
It is a nation of law (although those laws should be grounded in ethics), and no one is saying he should be incarcerated or persecuted by the legal system. But there are so many other mechanismy necessary to a functioning society than a functioning legal system, and this is one of them.
I agree that it does not need to be illegal for him to be questioned about it. But the lack of ethics in journalists these days is staggering. You'll see that sometimes, not very often, but sometimes they'll say that tax avoidance is legal. For the most part however they insinuate that it is not. If you first insinuate that it is illegal and you then corner someone by saying he is 'guilty' (often with that exact word) of tax avoidance, you are not being honest to the public either.
What everyone will remember ten years from now is that this guy committed tax fraud. Which is not necessarily what happened.