Panama Papers: The Secret of Dirty Money (2.6TB of info leaked)

[Warhippy]

Say what you will about the guy, but Sanders called this years ago.  Pretty good foresight.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-panama-papers_us_5703c2d4e4b083f5c608d386

 

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is highlighting his vote against the 2011 U.S. free trade agreement with Panama in light of explosive new details about Panama’s role as a tax haven.

Reports published on Sunday about the so-called Panama Papers, a leaked trove of documents tied to Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, have generated shockwaves across the globe. The documents reveal how Panama’s secretive legal environment enables the wealthy and powerful — including some 140 politicians and other international public figures — to conceal their fortunes.

Now Sanders is reminding voters that he spoke out about Panamanian tax evasion long before the issue made headlines that toppled at least one head of state. On Monday, the Democratic hopeful posted video on Facebook that shows him speaking out against the 2011 free trade agreement in the Senate, precisely because he believed it would encourage tax evasion by corporations and individuals.

“It turns out, Mr. President, that Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing large corporations and wealthy Americans to evade U.S. taxes, by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens,” Sanders said, addressing the Senate president, in an undated floor speech. “And the Panama free trade agreement would make this bad situation much worse.”

Sanders went on to argue that legal provisions in the trade agreement would hamper efforts to police tax evasion by American individuals and corporations in Panama.

“Well, at a time when we have a $14 trillion-plus national debt, and at a time when we are frantically figuring out ways to try to lower our deficit, some of us believe that it is a good idea to do away with all of these tax havens by which the wealthy and large corporations stash their money abroad and avoid paying U.S. taxes,” Sanders said. “The Panama free trade agreement would make that goal even more difficult.”

Sanders was joined by 21 Democratic senators in voting against the agreement in October 2011. Hillary Clinton, then serving as Secretary of State, praised the free trade agreement at the time.

“With the release of the Panama Papers it appears [Sanders] was right,” Sanders’ Senate office wrote on Monday in the Facebook message accompanying the video, which can be seen below. As of Tuesday morning, the footage had been viewed over 1.7 million times.

 

At the very least, the Panama Papers prove the trade agreement did not live up to promises that it would reduce U.S. tax evasion in the country, said nonprofit corporate accountability group Public Citizen. The Obama administration negotiated a separate tax information sharing agreement to assuage doubts that the deal would enable tax evasion, but as Public Citizen notes, a loophole allowed the Panamanian government to set aside transparency requirements if they ran “contrary to the public policy” of Panama.

Sanders’ Facebook post reinforces his image as an opponent of corporate malfeasance and recent trade agreements. Those issues could resonate inmanufacturing-heavy Wisconsin, where Democratic voters head to the polls on Tuesday.

[taxi]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Just think of it like this.

 

Wikileaks, gave up US state secrets, it was THE top story for weeks.  This story isn't getting nearly the same coverage though by comparison.

 

That being said there was a US law passed around 2010 that forced US citizens to disclose or at least left them unable to pay taxes via Panamanian companies so that there is thus far little news known or people named from the US isn't entirely shocking.

 

What is though, is this is literally one of possibly hundreds or thousands of firms set up across the globe doing just this for wealthy people and companies.  Absolutely incredible really when you think of the scope of it all

Apparently, there is more coming, and they've yet to release a lot of the North American stuff. Basically, I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy by North American media to suppress the information. We just haven't seen anything that's all that interesting to a North American audience...yet.

 

This also just isn't one of 100,000s of firms, this is a big one. That's why people like Assad and Putin are involved. This is the big leagues, and I think we're likely to see some more fallout. 

 

I've heard a rumour that the American stuff may involve presidential candidates, and the worry is that releasing this stuff could decide the election.

[nuckin_futz]

Iceland PM Resigns Following Protests Over Offshore Investments

The Panama secrecy leak claimed its first scalp after Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson resigned following revelations about his personal finances.

 

The decision was announced in parliament after the legislature had been the focus of street protests that attracted thousands of Icelanders angered by the alleged tax evasion of their leader. Gunnlaugsson, who will step down a year before his term was due to end, gave in to mounting pressure from the opposition and even from corners of his own party.

 

The Panama documents leak, printed in newspapers around the world, showed that the 41-year-old premier and his wife had investments placed in the British Virgin Islands, which included debt in Iceland’s three failed banks. Gunnlaugsson is the second Icelandic premier to resign amid a popular uprising, after Geir Haarde was forced out following protests in 2009.

 

Gunnlaugsson always looked to be the most vulnerable of the politicians implicated in the documents. From Moscow to Islamabad and Buenos Aires, most public figures have managed to beat off the revelations with a combination of outrage, indifference and semi denial. None of those tactics worked for Gunnlaugsson, whose first response was to walk out of an interview with Swedish TV, a clip that went viral after the leaks were published on Sunday.

 

The electorate balked at the alleged tax evasion and Gunnlaugsson’s initial refusal to budge. Police on Monday erected barricades around the parliament in Reykjavik as protesters beat drums and pelted the legislature with eggs and yogurt. Almost 10,000 people gathered, according to police, while organizers said the figure was twice as high. Thousands more had signed up on Facebook to attend a second round of protests due to take place on Tuesday afternoon.

 

Other political leaders have also been forced to defend themselves since the leaked documents surfaced. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said he has no offshore funds or trusts amid demands for an inquiry from opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Gunnlaugsson put Agriculture Minister Sigridur Ingi Johannsson forward as his proposed replacement. The outgoing prime minister will remain chairman of the Progressive Party, which has governed in a two-party coalition since 2013.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-05/iceland-pm-resigns-following-protests-over-offshore-investments

 

****************************

 

Well that didn't take very long. Tubby didn't even put up much of a fight.

[Realtor Rod]

Haha, and the dominoes have started to fall. Where are the US parties? 

[Dazzle]

12 hours ago, CanadianLoonie said:

Because big wigs want a de-centralized world where they CAN'T have absolute control?

 

I don't know what mind-altering substance was in your bloodstream when you wrote that line, but to think that I am affiliated with the big wigs is intellectually-offensive considering how much I have expressed against centralized control over individuals here on this board.

Maybe because it's intellectually offensive to suggest that corporations are cheating taxes because they are getting taxed. (If corporations weren't taxed, money would stay 'local'). YOUR solution was to remove taxation altogether. Really?

 

Corporations are making BILLIONS of dollars in profits - even when supposedly "taxed", and your solution is NO TAXATION? They're not gonna start chipping in, unless they're forced to - because their interest is to keep shareholders happy. This includes reducing the amount of taxes paid.

 

Which is why I sarcastically suggested that you're a big wig.

[etsen3]

8 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Say what you will about the guy, but Sanders called this years ago.  Pretty good foresight.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-panama-papers_us_5703c2d4e4b083f5c608d386

 

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is highlighting his vote against the 2011 U.S. free trade agreement with Panama in light of explosive new details about Panama’s role as a tax haven.

Reports published on Sunday about the so-called Panama Papers, a leaked trove of documents tied to Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, have generated shockwaves across the globe. The documents reveal how Panama’s secretive legal environment enables the wealthy and powerful — including some 140 politicians and other international public figures — to conceal their fortunes.

Now Sanders is reminding voters that he spoke out about Panamanian tax evasion long before the issue made headlines that toppled at least one head of state. On Monday, the Democratic hopeful posted video on Facebook that shows him speaking out against the 2011 free trade agreement in the Senate, precisely because he believed it would encourage tax evasion by corporations and individuals.

“It turns out, Mr. President, that Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing large corporations and wealthy Americans to evade U.S. taxes, by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens,” Sanders said, addressing the Senate president, in an undated floor speech. “And the Panama free trade agreement would make this bad situation much worse.”

Sanders went on to argue that legal provisions in the trade agreement would hamper efforts to police tax evasion by American individuals and corporations in Panama.

“Well, at a time when we have a $14 trillion-plus national debt, and at a time when we are frantically figuring out ways to try to lower our deficit, some of us believe that it is a good idea to do away with all of these tax havens by which the wealthy and large corporations stash their money abroad and avoid paying U.S. taxes,” Sanders said. “The Panama free trade agreement would make that goal even more difficult.”

Sanders was joined by 21 Democratic senators in voting against the agreement in October 2011. Hillary Clinton, then serving as Secretary of State, praised the free trade agreement at the time.

“With the release of the Panama Papers it appears [Sanders] was right,” Sanders’ Senate office wrote on Monday in the Facebook message accompanying the video, which can be seen below. As of Tuesday morning, the footage had been viewed over 1.7 million times.

 

At the very least, the Panama Papers prove the trade agreement did not live up to promises that it would reduce U.S. tax evasion in the country, said nonprofit corporate accountability group Public Citizen. The Obama administration negotiated a separate tax information sharing agreement to assuage doubts that the deal would enable tax evasion, but as Public Citizen notes, a loophole allowed the Panamanian government to set aside transparency requirements if they ran “contrary to the public policy” of Panama.

Sanders’ Facebook post reinforces his image as an opponent of corporate malfeasance and recent trade agreements. Those issues could resonate inmanufacturing-heavy Wisconsin, where Democratic voters head to the polls on Tuesday.

I don't really think anyone should be shocked by these leaks, it's one of those things where you could have a sense it was rampant, now we have details.

[Hugor Hill]

21 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Say what you will about the guy, but Sanders called this years ago.  Pretty good foresight.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-panama-papers_us_5703c2d4e4b083f5c608d386

 

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is highlighting his vote against the 2011 U.S. free trade agreement with Panama in light of explosive new details about Panama’s role as a tax haven.

Reports published on Sunday about the so-called Panama Papers, a leaked trove of documents tied to Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, have generated shockwaves across the globe. The documents reveal how Panama’s secretive legal environment enables the wealthy and powerful — including some 140 politicians and other international public figures — to conceal their fortunes.

Now Sanders is reminding voters that he spoke out about Panamanian tax evasion long before the issue made headlines that toppled at least one head of state. On Monday, the Democratic hopeful posted video on Facebook that shows him speaking out against the 2011 free trade agreement in the Senate, precisely because he believed it would encourage tax evasion by corporations and individuals.

“It turns out, Mr. President, that Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing large corporations and wealthy Americans to evade U.S. taxes, by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens,” Sanders said, addressing the Senate president, in an undated floor speech. “And the Panama free trade agreement would make this bad situation much worse.”

Sanders went on to argue that legal provisions in the trade agreement would hamper efforts to police tax evasion by American individuals and corporations in Panama.

“Well, at a time when we have a $14 trillion-plus national debt, and at a time when we are frantically figuring out ways to try to lower our deficit, some of us believe that it is a good idea to do away with all of these tax havens by which the wealthy and large corporations stash their money abroad and avoid paying U.S. taxes,” Sanders said. “The Panama free trade agreement would make that goal even more difficult.”

Sanders was joined by 21 Democratic senators in voting against the agreement in October 2011. Hillary Clinton, then serving as Secretary of State, praised the free trade agreement at the time.

“With the release of the Panama Papers it appears [Sanders] was right,” Sanders’ Senate office wrote on Monday in the Facebook message accompanying the video, which can be seen below. As of Tuesday morning, the footage had been viewed over 1.7 million times.

 

At the very least, the Panama Papers prove the trade agreement did not live up to promises that it would reduce U.S. tax evasion in the country, said nonprofit corporate accountability group Public Citizen. The Obama administration negotiated a separate tax information sharing agreement to assuage doubts that the deal would enable tax evasion, but as Public Citizen notes, a loophole allowed the Panamanian government to set aside transparency requirements if they ran “contrary to the public policy” of Panama.

Sanders’ Facebook post reinforces his image as an opponent of corporate malfeasance and recent trade agreements. Those issues could resonate inmanufacturing-heavy Wisconsin, where Democratic voters head to the polls on Tuesday.

&^@# them all.

 

 

[Warhippy]

I fully expect within my lifetime that this issue of taxation on the poor and middle class with endless preferential treatment for the wealthy and different rules for them will be changed with gunfire.

[etsen3]

This is why the traditional Republican line about socialists "giving away things for free" and "transferring wealth" is laughable...when evidence shows that the money is not flowing downwards but upwards.  The amount of "free stuff" that the average person down the street is getting is peanuts compared to what the global elite is getting.

[Warhippy]

20 minutes ago, etsen3 said:

This is why the traditional Republican line about socialists "giving away things for free" and "transferring wealth" is laughable...when evidence shows that the money is not flowing downwards but upwards.  The amount of "free stuff" that the average person down the street is getting is peanuts compared to what the global elite is getting.

Inevitably governments HAVE to tax someone more to make up for the shortfall.  The middle and lower classes will make up that shortfall.

[CanadianLoonie]

18 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Maybe because it's intellectually offensive to suggest that corporations are cheating taxes because they are getting taxed. (If corporations weren't taxed, money would stay 'local'). YOUR solution was to remove taxation altogether. Really?

 

Corporations are making BILLIONS of dollars in profits - even when supposedly "taxed", and your solution is NO TAXATION?

Yes, because you are not thinking critically...

 

18 hours ago, Dazzle said:

They're not gonna start chipping in, unless they're forced to - because their interest is to keep shareholders happy. This includes reducing the amount of taxes paid.

If you insist upon governments providing basic services, then it is not the responsibility of corporations to be taxed to fund those expenditures.

 

31 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Inevitably governments HAVE to tax someone more to make up for the shortfall. 

Again, someone who isn't thinking things thru...

 

Let me ask you all...why does the government have to engage in taxation, when they already have a legal monopoly on the issuance of their own national currency?

 

The government/central bank can just "print" any amount of quantity of currency that they deem necessary to fulfill their budgetary expenditures and spend it into the economy...so why is taxation even necessary?

 

Free health care, free education, public infrastructure, even a basic minimum income...can all just be "printed" up and funded...so why don't they do it? 

[Electro Rock]

59 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I fully expect within my lifetime that this issue of taxation on the poor and middle class with endless preferential treatment for the wealthy and different rules for them will be changed with gunfire.

If enough people stopped being antigun leftards, that change could come a lot sooner.

[CanadianLoonie]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

I fully expect within my lifetime that this issue of taxation on the poor and middle class with endless preferential treatment for the wealthy and different rules for them will be changed with gunfire.

So taxation is theft is not good enough, it has to be taxation is armed robbery!

[Hugor Hill]

18 minutes ago, CanadianLoonie said:

If you insist upon governments providing basic services, then it is not the responsibility of corporations to be taxed to fund those expenditures.

 

Yes it is.

 

[Warhippy]

18 minutes ago, CanadianLoonie said:

Yes, because you are not thinking critically...

 

If you insist upon governments providing basic services, then it is not the responsibility of corporations to be taxed to fund those expenditures.

 

Again, someone who isn't thinking things thru...

 

Let me ask you all...why does the government have to engage in taxation, when they already have a legal monopoly on the issuance of their own national currency?

 

The government/central bank can just "print" any amount of quantity of currency that they deem necessary to fulfill their budgetary expenditures and spend it into the economy...so why is taxation even necessary?

 

Free health care, free education, public infrastructure, even a basic minimum income...can all just be "printed" up and funded...so why don't they do it? 

Oh sorry, yes I am not thinking things through you're right.

 

Remind me again then, when governments find out how much tax money they are missing out on historically, to whom do they make up said shortfall with?  It is never the wealthy.

 

While I am agree and completely stand beside you in your closing statement, you also undoubtedly understand where that extra money will inevitably come from.

[Realtor Rod]

The North East states should be interesting. Trump not getting enough votes might be just as entertaining. Cruz does all this work and in swoops a candidate who has been sitting at home drinking coffee on his porch. 

[CanadianLoonie]

 

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Oh sorry, yes I am not thinking things through you're right.

 

Remind me again then, when governments find out how much tax money they are missing out on historically, to whom do they make up said shortfall with?  It is never the wealthy.

 

While I am agree and completely stand beside you in your closing statement, you also undoubtedly understand where that extra money will inevitably come from.

What's wrong with using the printing press to make up any shortfall?

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, CanadianLoonie said:

 

What's wrong with using the printing press to make up any shortfall?

You're joking, for certain - right?  

[MikeyBoy44]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

You're joking, for certain - right?  

Pfft I do it in the comfort of my own home. I mean. Wait. 

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, CanadianLoonie said:

 

What's wrong with using the printing press to make up any shortfall?

I didn't say anything was wrong with it, I regularly purchase precious metals with 10% of every cheque I get.  And print is amazing when there is a need to burn something worthless for warmth