“Hermione,” Ron said quietly, “what’s a tax shelter?”
May 11, 2016 11:35 AM Subscribe
While the papers explore her motives, the blogs explore the papers motives, and reddit gives us a clear cross section of their motives, I'll just sit here hoping Mallory Ortberg keeps this going.
Avert your eyes from the Reddit discussion of this, it's awful, even by Reddit standards.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:50 AM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:50 AM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
What the hell? She's a private citizen and shouldn't have to answer to anyone but the authorities that she owes taxes to about how she manages her money.
This isn't the case in an a lot of non-US/UK countries, where taxes (and wages!) are an entirely public matter.
In this case, I'm glad that the UK seems to be reacting to this scandal appropriately, by treating tax evasion as the crime and antisocial behavior that it is.
Meanwhile in the US, most of us (including many government officials) seem to believe that it's a virtue to game the system to pay as little tax as possible.
posted by schmod at 11:53 AM on May 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
This isn't the case in an a lot of non-US/UK countries, where taxes (and wages!) are an entirely public matter.
In this case, I'm glad that the UK seems to be reacting to this scandal appropriately, by treating tax evasion as the crime and antisocial behavior that it is.
Meanwhile in the US, most of us (including many government officials) seem to believe that it's a virtue to game the system to pay as little tax as possible.
posted by schmod at 11:53 AM on May 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Agreed. I'm inclined to believe the privacy rationale for the offshore shell company, given that, as Ta-Nehisi Coates discovered, even using an LLC (or the British equivalent) doesn't ensure your home address won't be printed in the tabloids.
Part of the problem here is that it's difficult to tell a priori whether a shell company is being used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. No one would dispute that a celebrity should have the ability to not have stalkers or paparazzi hounding them where they live, but how do you that without also allowing tax evaders to prosper?
THAT SAID, Hermione Granger as Randian mastermind makes a surprising amount of sense. But how do you square it with her advocacy for house-elf rights?
posted by Cash4Lead at 11:55 AM on May 11, 2016 [20 favorites]
Part of the problem here is that it's difficult to tell a priori whether a shell company is being used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. No one would dispute that a celebrity should have the ability to not have stalkers or paparazzi hounding them where they live, but how do you that without also allowing tax evaders to prosper?
THAT SAID, Hermione Granger as Randian mastermind makes a surprising amount of sense. But how do you square it with her advocacy for house-elf rights?
posted by Cash4Lead at 11:55 AM on May 11, 2016 [20 favorites]
In this case, I'm glad that the UK seems to be reacting to this scandal appropriately, by treating tax evasion as the crime and antisocial behavior that it is.
I agree, but this isn't the UK government accusing Emma Watson of tax evasion. This is tabloids blabbing about the fact that she owns offshore companies.
You can have an offshore company and pay all of the taxes that you owe. Which is why the Panama Papers should be in the hands of authorities, not tabloids.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:57 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
I agree, but this isn't the UK government accusing Emma Watson of tax evasion. This is tabloids blabbing about the fact that she owns offshore companies.
You can have an offshore company and pay all of the taxes that you owe. Which is why the Panama Papers should be in the hands of authorities, not tabloids.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:57 AM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Harry stopped at every bar on the way home, until he could no longer remember the look that had entered her eyes as she said it.
With every walk between each grimy bar door, the memory was getting less and less sharp. But once he was home, the impact of the dread still hung on his heart, and luckily the bottle of tequila in the recycle bin wasn't empty.
posted by numaner at 12:02 PM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
With every walk between each grimy bar door, the memory was getting less and less sharp. But once he was home, the impact of the dread still hung on his heart, and luckily the bottle of tequila in the recycle bin wasn't empty.
posted by numaner at 12:02 PM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Considering the amount of flak that Watson's taken from the manosphere for simply declaring herself a *gasp* feminist, as well as said manosphere's demonstrated propensity for making terroristic threats on openly feminist personalities, I don't blame her for using every means at her disposal to stay off the radar.
posted by Strange Interlude at 12:02 PM on May 11, 2016 [40 favorites]
posted by Strange Interlude at 12:02 PM on May 11, 2016 [40 favorites]
The Guardian have disclosed "private citizens" with offshores a month ago, so the "not newsworthy" excuse doesn't fly.
What I don't see is any reason to kick up a fuss about a B-list actress involved with an offshore not having a front page article about that. If the Guardian kept out her name out on the next "celebrities who might be dodging taxes" list, then yeah.
posted by lmfsilva at 12:14 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
What I don't see is any reason to kick up a fuss about a B-list actress involved with an offshore not having a front page article about that. If the Guardian kept out her name out on the next "celebrities who might be dodging taxes" list, then yeah.
posted by lmfsilva at 12:14 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
1. Was Hermione a muggle? Is that what is meant by "But you're -"
She's muggle born. I think that would've ended "But you're muggle born." Or some such.
Treasure island like an island to offshore wealth.
posted by avalonian at 12:16 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
She's muggle born. I think that would've ended "But you're muggle born." Or some such.
Treasure island like an island to offshore wealth.
posted by avalonian at 12:16 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
B-list? Pistols at dawn!
posted by Ber at 12:20 PM on May 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Ber at 12:20 PM on May 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
I deeply don't care what Emma Watson does with her money, as long as she's not giving it to Donald Trump. But the Mallory Ortberg was a lot of fun, thanks.
posted by still_wears_a_hat at 12:29 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by still_wears_a_hat at 12:29 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
There are probably a number of reasons her advisors set this up for her, but limiting her tax liabilities was probably a factor. There is a long tradition of British celebrities avoiding their tax obligations. She isn't any more guilty than the others who have participated in these schemes.
posted by humanfont at 12:43 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 12:43 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Which is why the Panama Papers should be in the hands of authorities, not tabloids.
You have a lot more faith than I do in the ability and willingness of the authorities to resist pressure from the political elites in charge of their staffing and funding.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 12:54 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
You have a lot more faith than I do in the ability and willingness of the authorities to resist pressure from the political elites in charge of their staffing and funding.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 12:54 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Or any less.
posted by biffa at 12:55 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by biffa at 12:55 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
No Gringotts jokes yet? Really?
OK, well, I'll check in later, and if any serious HP fans haven't posted one, I'll see what I can manage.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:59 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
OK, well, I'll check in later, and if any serious HP fans haven't posted one, I'll see what I can manage.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:59 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Incorporating an business to avoid having your address be a matter of public record is absolutely a thing people do, especially if they're a public figure that wants to keep their address away from stalkers/swatters/doxxers. Incorporating an business with this particular firm in this particular place could mean anything from "actively trying to avoid taxes" to "this is the firm their financial manager ordinarily does business with". I'm going to assume her motivation was "grace us all with another great Ortberg piece".
posted by phooky at 1:10 PM on May 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by phooky at 1:10 PM on May 11, 2016 [12 favorites]
I totally buy the privacy angle. I mean, this case is self-evident that stupid shit gets printed by tabloids.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:16 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:16 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
prize bull octorok: No Gringotts jokes yet? Really?
OK, well, I'll check in later, and if any serious HP fans haven't posted one, I'll see what I can manage.
Sorry, I was torn between:
This only works on muggle money since Galleons are bewitched to respond to the Ministry of Magical Revenue's call of "accio taxonem".
Or
Who knew Hermione's patronus would take the form of a dodgy accountant?
posted by dr_dank at 1:31 PM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
OK, well, I'll check in later, and if any serious HP fans haven't posted one, I'll see what I can manage.
Sorry, I was torn between:
This only works on muggle money since Galleons are bewitched to respond to the Ministry of Magical Revenue's call of "accio taxonem".
Or
Who knew Hermione's patronus would take the form of a dodgy accountant?
posted by dr_dank at 1:31 PM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
If you think about it, "Accenture!" does sound a bit like a Potterverse spell...
posted by danhon at 1:46 PM on May 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by danhon at 1:46 PM on May 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
She isn't any more guilty than the others who have participated in these schemes.
Which is to say, still guilty.
posted by schmod at 1:50 PM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Which is to say, still guilty.
posted by schmod at 1:50 PM on May 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I think it's important here to remember the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax evasion is by definition illegal. Tax avoidance, on the other hand, is legal ("the arrangement of one's financial affairs to minimize tax liability within the law"). Legitimate financial advisers and money managers may well put their clients' money into various tax avoidance schemes.
Most countries have a constant race between financial advisers thinking up new legal schemes, and the revenue authorities passing new laws to close the loopholes, and as long as there's a reasonable balance there shouldn't be a problem.
My impression from the Panama Papers stuff is that in a lot of cases it's outright tax evasion for which someone ought to go to prison. In other cases, though, governments have knowingly left huge areas of tax avoidance alone, where they should have been legislating against them years ago, so for me it's a two-pronged scandal.
For any named individual like Emma Watson, I don't see how we can know yet whether it's a case of tax avoidance or tax evasion. I would find it a bit sad, though, if where people have been praising her for years for being sensible with her money, she now got pilloried for using a legal scheme he advisors had set up.
posted by Azara at 1:57 PM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Most countries have a constant race between financial advisers thinking up new legal schemes, and the revenue authorities passing new laws to close the loopholes, and as long as there's a reasonable balance there shouldn't be a problem.
My impression from the Panama Papers stuff is that in a lot of cases it's outright tax evasion for which someone ought to go to prison. In other cases, though, governments have knowingly left huge areas of tax avoidance alone, where they should have been legislating against them years ago, so for me it's a two-pronged scandal.
For any named individual like Emma Watson, I don't see how we can know yet whether it's a case of tax avoidance or tax evasion. I would find it a bit sad, though, if where people have been praising her for years for being sensible with her money, she now got pilloried for using a legal scheme he advisors had set up.
posted by Azara at 1:57 PM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Tax avoidance being legal doesn't make it moral, though. I don't know to what extent this is true in the UK, but in the US laws are written and passed exclusively by the rich (both through legalized bribery known as "lobbying" and through the fact that we have no non-rich people in our Senate), so things that obviously should not be legal (in that they are harmful to both the government and the public at large) but that primarily benefit the rich are basically guaranteed to be legal.
Then, after you do what is apparently your patriotic duty to avoid paying the government for the public services you use, the quality of those services declines because they are underfunded, and then some conservative politician rails against the low quality of the services and manages to drum up support to shrink their portion of the pie even further, and repeat ad nauseam until the obvious thing happens.
In short: If you are avoiding taxes you know you owe, through legal means or otherwise, you are being an asshole to a degree that should itself be criminalized. Be an adult and share the wealth that you were only able to accrue because of the broad network of public services that made it possible both for you to do the thing you did and for other people to pay you for it.
posted by IAmUnaware at 2:29 PM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Then, after you do what is apparently your patriotic duty to avoid paying the government for the public services you use, the quality of those services declines because they are underfunded, and then some conservative politician rails against the low quality of the services and manages to drum up support to shrink their portion of the pie even further, and repeat ad nauseam until the obvious thing happens.
In short: If you are avoiding taxes you know you owe, through legal means or otherwise, you are being an asshole to a degree that should itself be criminalized. Be an adult and share the wealth that you were only able to accrue because of the broad network of public services that made it possible both for you to do the thing you did and for other people to pay you for it.
posted by IAmUnaware at 2:29 PM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Or, you know, given that we don't know what the intent was, and all we are able to do is believe what she is saying perhaps this has nothing to do with tax (whether evasion or avoidance) and is simply an attempt to keep the details around a home ownership private.
posted by danhon at 2:55 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by danhon at 2:55 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
What smells is that she’s using the same dodgy lawyers that were apparently perfectly happy to aid and abet the hiding of the proceeds of criminal acts.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt, I imagine her accountants set it up for her: in turn they were using Mossack Fonseca to offshore the profits & evade taxes for their other clients, so just took the path of least resistance and used the same bunch of shysters to handle Watson’s affairs.
Doesn’t stop it stinking to high heaven though.
posted by pharm at 3:00 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Giving her the benefit of the doubt, I imagine her accountants set it up for her: in turn they were using Mossack Fonseca to offshore the profits & evade taxes for their other clients, so just took the path of least resistance and used the same bunch of shysters to handle Watson’s affairs.
Doesn’t stop it stinking to high heaven though.
posted by pharm at 3:00 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Reading the first couple comments here without reading TFA(s) really made it sound like Mallory Ortberg had somehow become implicated in a tax evasion scandal. I hadn't known that the Toast made enough money for that to be worth it!
posted by vibratory manner of working at 3:12 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vibratory manner of working at 3:12 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Before people start passing around the smelling salts at the concept of tax avoidance being an entirely legal sport in the UK, it is worth noting that the top UK tax tier is 45% for every £1 earned over £150,000.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:45 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by DarlingBri at 3:45 PM on May 11, 2016
Or, you know, given that we don't know what the intent was, and all we are able to do is believe what she is saying perhaps this has nothing to do with tax (whether evasion or avoidance) and is simply an attempt to keep the details around a home ownership private.
... does this really make sense to anyone? I don't know whether there's a way to go from someone's name to details of property they own. It's not the sort of thing a private person can do in Australia, as far as I know. Generally speaking you would go from a known address - and I bet every newspaper and paparazzo knows where Watson lives - and look up the address to find who owns it. And who cares whether she's a renter or owner, and why should that information be privileged in any case?
The privacy argument is weak-sauce deflection, like claiming athletic scholarships are there to let poor kids attend college. We all know why wealthy individuals use offshore accounts; even if they have another motive (I used to know some Holocaust survivors who did it for obvious reasons) it enables tax evasion and the burden of proof must rest on anyone denying that this was their motive.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:52 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
... does this really make sense to anyone? I don't know whether there's a way to go from someone's name to details of property they own. It's not the sort of thing a private person can do in Australia, as far as I know. Generally speaking you would go from a known address - and I bet every newspaper and paparazzo knows where Watson lives - and look up the address to find who owns it. And who cares whether she's a renter or owner, and why should that information be privileged in any case?
The privacy argument is weak-sauce deflection, like claiming athletic scholarships are there to let poor kids attend college. We all know why wealthy individuals use offshore accounts; even if they have another motive (I used to know some Holocaust survivors who did it for obvious reasons) it enables tax evasion and the burden of proof must rest on anyone denying that this was their motive.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:52 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
does this really make sense to anyone? I don't know whether there's a way to go from someone's name to details of property they own
It does. And if you look up thread, you'll see articles in the UK press illustrating exactly how public a UK company's records are and exactly how much information they hold. The answer to the question "how to do I hide my identity?" has always been "offshore." I would be genuinely shocked if there are any high-profile UK people who are not offshore.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:03 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
It does. And if you look up thread, you'll see articles in the UK press illustrating exactly how public a UK company's records are and exactly how much information they hold. The answer to the question "how to do I hide my identity?" has always been "offshore." I would be genuinely shocked if there are any high-profile UK people who are not offshore.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:03 PM on May 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry, why would "how public a UK company's records are" have anything to do with anything? Her house is owned by a corporation for tax reasons, surely. There's no privacy issue here; nobody cares whether she owns or rents.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:11 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:11 PM on May 11, 2016
In short: If you are avoiding taxes you know you owe, through legal means or otherwise, you are being an asshole to a degree that should itself be criminalized.
Tax law is 100% entirely man-made law. There is no universal moral code that can point anyone in any kind of direction to determine what they owe are (leaving aside 10% tithe religious tenets).
The only way for someone to "know" that they owe $amount in taxes is by looking at what the tax code says that they owe. If the tax code allows for lowering one's tax liability (tax avoidance), it's not immoral to do so. Just like it's not immoral to save your extra money (or choose to spend it on small luxuries) instead of giving it all away to those who are more needy than you.
What is probably immoral is the way that the elites can influence the tax laws in their favor. If Ms. Watson was also actively lobbying for changes that would result in lessening her tax burden at the expense of others, I would not be defending her.
posted by sparklemotion at 4:15 PM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Tax law is 100% entirely man-made law. There is no universal moral code that can point anyone in any kind of direction to determine what they owe are (leaving aside 10% tithe religious tenets).
The only way for someone to "know" that they owe $amount in taxes is by looking at what the tax code says that they owe. If the tax code allows for lowering one's tax liability (tax avoidance), it's not immoral to do so. Just like it's not immoral to save your extra money (or choose to spend it on small luxuries) instead of giving it all away to those who are more needy than you.
What is probably immoral is the way that the elites can influence the tax laws in their favor. If Ms. Watson was also actively lobbying for changes that would result in lessening her tax burden at the expense of others, I would not be defending her.
posted by sparklemotion at 4:15 PM on May 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Most countries have a constant race between financial advisers thinking up new legal schemes, and the revenue authorities passing new laws to close the loopholes, and as long as there's a reasonable balance there shouldn't be a problem.
This is an excessively optimistic way of looking at it:
Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens
You're thinking of, like, those dodgy Florida tax shelters they used to market to doctors. These people are avoiding reporting at all through various means and stashing the money where people won't ask questions.
posted by praemunire at 4:23 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is an excessively optimistic way of looking at it:
Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens
You're thinking of, like, those dodgy Florida tax shelters they used to market to doctors. These people are avoiding reporting at all through various means and stashing the money where people won't ask questions.
posted by praemunire at 4:23 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you are avoiding taxes you know you owe, through legal means or otherwise, you are being an asshole....Be an adult and share the wealth
Note to self: if you have an IRA or 401(k), you're an asshole and should share the wealth.
posted by jpe at 4:25 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Note to self: if you have an IRA or 401(k), you're an asshole and should share the wealth.
posted by jpe at 4:25 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't know whether there's a way to go from someone's name to details of property they own. It's not the sort of thing a private person can do in Australia, as far as I know.
In the U.S., this is not especially hard to do if you have access to a database like LexisNexis' public records search. There's some data that you need to have authorization to get at, but searching for a name and finding an address is pretty trivial (especially if you know other information about the person such as birth date and mother's maiden name -- details which btw, are on Emma Watson's Wikipedia page).
The LexisNexis records areavailable to anyone willing to pay for them.
The privacy argument is weak-sauce deflection
Listen -- maybe she is a dirty dirty tax evader who has never paid the public purse a cent and deserves to be in prison. The fact remains that for famous people to live safely, they need to be able to keep their property records secret. Hell -- that's true even for non-famous people (I honestly don't know how average income folks who need to hide from a stalker or the like do it).
posted by sparklemotion at 4:27 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
In the U.S., this is not especially hard to do if you have access to a database like LexisNexis' public records search. There's some data that you need to have authorization to get at, but searching for a name and finding an address is pretty trivial (especially if you know other information about the person such as birth date and mother's maiden name -- details which btw, are on Emma Watson's Wikipedia page).
The LexisNexis records areavailable to anyone willing to pay for them.
The privacy argument is weak-sauce deflection
Listen -- maybe she is a dirty dirty tax evader who has never paid the public purse a cent and deserves to be in prison. The fact remains that for famous people to live safely, they need to be able to keep their property records secret. Hell -- that's true even for non-famous people (I honestly don't know how average income folks who need to hide from a stalker or the like do it).
posted by sparklemotion at 4:27 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry, why would "how public a UK company's records are" have anything to do with anything? Her house is owned by a corporation for tax reasons, surely. There's no privacy issue here; nobody cares whether she owns or rents.
If, say, Lloyd Blankfein bought an enormous condo on the UWS, the press would be all over it. So privacy very much is a reason.
The difference is that Metafilter wouldn't fawn over him and acknowledge the privacy interest as it does here.
posted by jpe at 4:28 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
If, say, Lloyd Blankfein bought an enormous condo on the UWS, the press would be all over it. So privacy very much is a reason.
The difference is that Metafilter wouldn't fawn over him and acknowledge the privacy interest as it does here.
posted by jpe at 4:28 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Emma an actress and so no one going to get worked up very much. But what if you go to
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/
the data bank for Panama Papers, and then you put in the name of someone who is running for a very big office and who just announced he will not make his tax returns public?
posted by Postroad at 4:29 PM on May 11, 2016
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/
the data bank for Panama Papers, and then you put in the name of someone who is running for a very big office and who just announced he will not make his tax returns public?
posted by Postroad at 4:29 PM on May 11, 2016
the top UK tax tier is 45% for every £1 earned over £150,000
A few points of clarification:
1. £150,000 is a very high threshold. 90% of the UK population earns less than half of that.
2. A top marginal rate of 45% is not notably high in historical perspective. The top rate for earned income was 83% as late as 1979.
posted by ormon nekas at 4:31 PM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
A few points of clarification:
1. £150,000 is a very high threshold. 90% of the UK population earns less than half of that.
2. A top marginal rate of 45% is not notably high in historical perspective. The top rate for earned income was 83% as late as 1979.
posted by ormon nekas at 4:31 PM on May 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
But what if you go to
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/
the data bank for Panama Papers, and then you put in the name of someonewho is running for a very big office that owns a large hotel in Panama and who just announced he will not make his tax returns public?
Imagine that: people with businesses in Panama have Panamanian accounts.
Shocking.
posted by jpe at 4:31 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/
the data bank for Panama Papers, and then you put in the name of someone
Imagine that: people with businesses in Panama have Panamanian accounts.
Shocking.
posted by jpe at 4:31 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Many would argue that in a democracy, the full disclosure of wealth above a certain threshold is in the public interest, and that threshold would certainly include real estate in Central London or the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
posted by ormon nekas at 4:33 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by ormon nekas at 4:33 PM on May 11, 2016
Note to self: if you have an IRA or 401(k), you're an asshole and should share the wealth.
It's a squeaker, but this has got to be the most disingenuous post of the thread. IRAs are available to basically everybody, they're advertised as such, and they're definitely not what people pay you professionally to set up.
posted by indubitable at 4:39 PM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's a squeaker, but this has got to be the most disingenuous post of the thread. IRAs are available to basically everybody, they're advertised as such, and they're definitely not what people pay you professionally to set up.
posted by indubitable at 4:39 PM on May 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think it's an illegitimate move to argue "There are "appropriate" uses of off-shore accounts and therefore there are no problems here".
I do think it's appropriate to give benefit of the doubt in individual cases, and to recognize there are relevancies that outsiders don't know. Simultaneously, there's an appropriate level of skepticism, such as asking a) statistically what is the distribution in how actual accounts are utilized, but more crucially b) how do these apparently disparate usages interact to reproduce and incentivize certain systemic features and structures. As a society this approach would help us decide what could reasonably be done regarding problems such as corruption, law design and law enforcement, citizen education, etc.
posted by polymodus at 4:39 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I do think it's appropriate to give benefit of the doubt in individual cases, and to recognize there are relevancies that outsiders don't know. Simultaneously, there's an appropriate level of skepticism, such as asking a) statistically what is the distribution in how actual accounts are utilized, but more crucially b) how do these apparently disparate usages interact to reproduce and incentivize certain systemic features and structures. As a society this approach would help us decide what could reasonably be done regarding problems such as corruption, law design and law enforcement, citizen education, etc.
posted by polymodus at 4:39 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
If the Panama Papers are such a breach of privacy, why did we ever make the registers of land ownership and company directors and so on public in the first place?
The argument for using offshore tax havens for ‘privacy’ is an argument for changing the rules domestically, or it has no legs.
posted by ormon nekas at 4:41 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
The argument for using offshore tax havens for ‘privacy’ is an argument for changing the rules domestically, or it has no legs.
posted by ormon nekas at 4:41 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
The argument for using offshore tax havens for ‘privacy’ is an argument for changing the rules domestically, or it has no legs.
Exactly. It's a fair point and that's why "Emma Watson" symbolically hit such a nerve in the mass consciousness.
posted by polymodus at 4:43 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Exactly. It's a fair point and that's why "Emma Watson" symbolically hit such a nerve in the mass consciousness.
posted by polymodus at 4:43 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
(me)
Most countries have a constant race between financial advisers thinking up new legal schemes, and the revenue authorities passing new laws to close the loopholes, and as long as there's a reasonable balance there shouldn't be a problem.
(praemunire)
This is an excessively optimistic way of looking at it:
Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens
Yes, that was intended as a very conditional "as long as there's a reasonable balance" on my part. I'm well aware that in far too many countries lack of political will has meant that no one is actually trying to close the really big loopholes.
posted by Azara at 4:43 PM on May 11, 2016
Most countries have a constant race between financial advisers thinking up new legal schemes, and the revenue authorities passing new laws to close the loopholes, and as long as there's a reasonable balance there shouldn't be a problem.
(praemunire)
This is an excessively optimistic way of looking at it:
Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens
Yes, that was intended as a very conditional "as long as there's a reasonable balance" on my part. I'm well aware that in far too many countries lack of political will has meant that no one is actually trying to close the really big loopholes.
posted by Azara at 4:43 PM on May 11, 2016
IRAs are available to basically everybody
Let's reread the initial comment.
If you are avoiding taxes you know you owe, through legal means or otherwise, you are being an asshole
An IRA is a "legal means" to "avoid tax."
Someone's being disingenuous, but it certainly isn't me.
posted by jpe at 4:46 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Let's reread the initial comment.
If you are avoiding taxes you know you owe, through legal means or otherwise, you are being an asshole
An IRA is a "legal means" to "avoid tax."
Someone's being disingenuous, but it certainly isn't me.
posted by jpe at 4:46 PM on May 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
IRAs (and similar things elsewhere) attract less tax as an incentive: the government wants people to save for their retirement so it allows them to defer tax and/or pay a reduced rate. They are nothing at all like offshore accounts, whose main attraction is that they are not regulated (or indeed accessible) to the government.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:53 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:53 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
IRAs (and similar things elsewhere) attract less tax as an incentive
Now that we're all adding caveats and exceptions, I'm assuming everyone understands that the initial claim that any form of tax avoidance is wrong was inane.
Moving on.
It's odd that you wouldn't attribute the same motivation to other planning ideas. Offshore deferral, for example: US companies avoid tax (defer it) by not dividending income back to the US mothership. That system very clearly sets up an incentive to keep funds offshore. The system was set up intentionally (FN1), so it's odd to me that we would treat it differently than, say, IRAs. Is something "legitimate" tax avoidance only if expressly intended? How do we know, exactly, whether a given method of reducing tax was expressly intended? Does the legislature need to attach a "we intend this to be legitimate tax avoidance" clause?
(FN1) I'll note also that offshore deferral was expressly intended. There were extensive debates in the '60s, and they knew full well what they were doing.
posted by jpe at 4:59 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Now that we're all adding caveats and exceptions, I'm assuming everyone understands that the initial claim that any form of tax avoidance is wrong was inane.
Moving on.
It's odd that you wouldn't attribute the same motivation to other planning ideas. Offshore deferral, for example: US companies avoid tax (defer it) by not dividending income back to the US mothership. That system very clearly sets up an incentive to keep funds offshore. The system was set up intentionally (FN1), so it's odd to me that we would treat it differently than, say, IRAs. Is something "legitimate" tax avoidance only if expressly intended? How do we know, exactly, whether a given method of reducing tax was expressly intended? Does the legislature need to attach a "we intend this to be legitimate tax avoidance" clause?
(FN1) I'll note also that offshore deferral was expressly intended. There were extensive debates in the '60s, and they knew full well what they were doing.
posted by jpe at 4:59 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Now that you've conceded your mother isn't a virgin I'll continue ..."
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:11 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:11 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
FWIW, registering domain names through an intermediary is a completely ordinary thing to do, so if someone runs a WHOIS on the domain name they don't get your name and home address. You don't need to set up your own LLC to do it, so it's cheap or free. There's many people with very good reasons not to want their name and address in a public record somewhere.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:12 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by BungaDunga at 5:12 PM on May 11, 2016
If you are okay with Emma Watson doing this, then you are also okay with, say, the Koch brothers doing the same thing. In the wake of OWS and fighting the 1% (has it really been 8 years?) the cognitive dissonance is surreal, but is also I guess part of human nature.
posted by My Dad at 5:49 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 5:49 PM on May 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
There's many people with very good reasons not to want their name and address in a public record somewhere.
I don't think most people appreciate how public their details already are. If Emma Watson has a regular address it is undoubtedly known to anyone seriously interested in knowing it, as well as to anyone with a casual interest and access to a government database, or who has a friend that works for a major newspaper, or who works in debt recovery, or ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:06 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think most people appreciate how public their details already are. If Emma Watson has a regular address it is undoubtedly known to anyone seriously interested in knowing it, as well as to anyone with a casual interest and access to a government database, or who has a friend that works for a major newspaper, or who works in debt recovery, or ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:06 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't get the privacy argument at all. She's probably followed by a dozen paparazzis everywhere she goes, and unless she is secretly a ninja there's no way to avoid them following her to her home, no matter where the land ownership is registered.
posted by ymgve at 7:04 PM on May 11, 2016
posted by ymgve at 7:04 PM on May 11, 2016
The best line on this so far was something in the gawker comments: Hermione got caught researching a counter spell to Taxio Levyosa.
posted by Ghidorah at 8:03 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Ghidorah at 8:03 PM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you are okay with Emma Watson doing this, then you are also okay with, say, the Koch brothers doing the same thing. In the wake of OWS and fighting the 1% (has it really been 8 years?) the cognitive dissonance is surreal, but is also I guess part of human nature.
Yes, I'm fine with the Koch Brothers doing this (where "this" is defined as "owning offshore assets"). You know why? Because it's not offshore tax havens that put the Koch Brothers in the 0.01%. Close this loophole, and they'll just create another. And if they don't? Well, maybe they'll only have wealth equivalent to that of the bottom 30% of the US instead of 40%.
posted by sparklemotion at 8:30 PM on May 11, 2016
Yes, I'm fine with the Koch Brothers doing this (where "this" is defined as "owning offshore assets"). You know why? Because it's not offshore tax havens that put the Koch Brothers in the 0.01%. Close this loophole, and they'll just create another. And if they don't? Well, maybe they'll only have wealth equivalent to that of the bottom 30% of the US instead of 40%.
posted by sparklemotion at 8:30 PM on May 11, 2016
Because it's not offshore tax havens that put the Koch Brothers in the 0.01%. Close this loophole, and they'll just create another.
So, because people break rules, we just shouldn't have any? Even if the consequence is a significant impoverishment of society?
Hope your serf grandchildren enjoy the turnips that they'll be doled out by their masters as a treat once a year on Jesus Day.
posted by praemunire at 9:04 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
So, because people break rules, we just shouldn't have any? Even if the consequence is a significant impoverishment of society?
Hope your serf grandchildren enjoy the turnips that they'll be doled out by their masters as a treat once a year on Jesus Day.
posted by praemunire at 9:04 PM on May 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
There are many non-celebrity people who have to deal with harassment and stalking, every day. Non-celebrities are killed by stalkers, too.
If our concern was around privacy and protection, surely we must advocate that all property and company records should not reveal the identity of the beneficial owner. It feels somewhat skewed to have a situation where you can protect yourself against harassment, as long as you're able to afford to offshore your property purchases.
posted by reynir at 11:40 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
If our concern was around privacy and protection, surely we must advocate that all property and company records should not reveal the identity of the beneficial owner. It feels somewhat skewed to have a situation where you can protect yourself against harassment, as long as you're able to afford to offshore your property purchases.
posted by reynir at 11:40 PM on May 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
So, because people break rules, we just shouldn't have any?
Again, there is no evidence available to you or I that Emma Watson broke any rules.
I trust that the UK tax authorities will look into her assets and determine whether or not she was acting within the law, and deal with her accordingly if she was not.
posted by sparklemotion at 5:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Again, there is no evidence available to you or I that Emma Watson broke any rules.
I trust that the UK tax authorities will look into her assets and determine whether or not she was acting within the law, and deal with her accordingly if she was not.
posted by sparklemotion at 5:39 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
She was likely acting within the law. But so are a lot of other people who shelter assets and income in safe places. What's irritating is that it's bad for people you don't like to do it, but you can always find some good reason to excuse the behavior of someone you *do* like. It's a point of view that is not intellectually rigorous, nor really based on any defensible system of values.
posted by My Dad at 5:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 5:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
but you can always find some good reason to excuse the behavior of someone you *do* like.
I do wonder if this level of white knighting would be seen if instead of Emma Watson it was an unlikable football player like Wayne Rooney or a musician like Chris Martin or a downright professional asshole like Piers Morgan, who both very likely also hold offshore accounts for unknown purposes. And that's the thing - unknown. The Reddit discussion is disgusting, but the whole "her shit doesn't stink" attitude here is also off-putting.
She's not with good company, and deserves some serious side-eye. And that's it.
posted by lmfsilva at 7:30 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I do wonder if this level of white knighting would be seen if instead of Emma Watson it was an unlikable football player like Wayne Rooney or a musician like Chris Martin or a downright professional asshole like Piers Morgan, who both very likely also hold offshore accounts for unknown purposes. And that's the thing - unknown. The Reddit discussion is disgusting, but the whole "her shit doesn't stink" attitude here is also off-putting.
She's not with good company, and deserves some serious side-eye. And that's it.
posted by lmfsilva at 7:30 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Regarding privacy, I figured it was to protect the location of her non-"regular" residence. So there's somewhere she can go where no one knows where she is. Less likely for papparazzi to be hanging off roofs and whatnot.
posted by avalonian at 8:06 AM on May 12, 2016
posted by avalonian at 8:06 AM on May 12, 2016
I do wonder if this level of white knighting
If you're not an MRA jerkhole, you may wish to avoid this phrase; it is permanently tainted by them and makes anything that follows it immediately suspect.
posted by phearlez at 8:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you're not an MRA jerkhole, you may wish to avoid this phrase; it is permanently tainted by them and makes anything that follows it immediately suspect.
posted by phearlez at 8:40 AM on May 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
"defense" works, I think.
But to the point of why I'm (and perhaps others in this thread) are bothering to remind people that Emma Watson, specifically, hasn't been shown to have done anything wrong. It has to do with the links in the OP.
The Guardian published a list of folks in who were in the Papers, back in April. Obviously not a comprehensive list, but the headline picture was Simon Cowell on a jetski (not the most flattering of looks, for someone who is probably not the most popular).
Then, the Spectator picks it up, and ribs The Guardian for giving Emma Watson "a miss."
Then you've got the Reddit links, all up in arms about how (paraphrasing) "SJW [bad word] is a total hypocritical [bad word], won't the feminazi's be so pissed when they find out that their hero is a dirty criminal, etc."
So, while I was wrong in my first comment about private citizens in the Papers being non-newsworthy, I think it's important to remember that 1.) being in the Papers does not mean being a tax evader, and 2.) there's no kind of SJW cabal trying to cover up Ms. Watson's involvement.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
But to the point of why I'm (and perhaps others in this thread) are bothering to remind people that Emma Watson, specifically, hasn't been shown to have done anything wrong. It has to do with the links in the OP.
The Guardian published a list of folks in who were in the Papers, back in April. Obviously not a comprehensive list, but the headline picture was Simon Cowell on a jetski (not the most flattering of looks, for someone who is probably not the most popular).
Then, the Spectator picks it up, and ribs The Guardian for giving Emma Watson "a miss."
Then you've got the Reddit links, all up in arms about how (paraphrasing) "SJW [bad word] is a total hypocritical [bad word], won't the feminazi's be so pissed when they find out that their hero is a dirty criminal, etc."
So, while I was wrong in my first comment about private citizens in the Papers being non-newsworthy, I think it's important to remember that 1.) being in the Papers does not mean being a tax evader, and 2.) there's no kind of SJW cabal trying to cover up Ms. Watson's involvement.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:13 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Defense will be, then. Thanks.
being in the Papers does not mean being a tax evader,
But also means it's far more likely they are. We can't say for sure, and assuming people we like are doing it for rainbows and blue skies and people we don't like are doing it to cheat taxes and trade weapons to third world countries without anything to back that up (so, sorry I'm not sorry, Mark Thatcher) is hypocrisy. I wouldn't put my hands on the fire for anyone caught in this mess or dealing with offshores (including, for instance, Tottenham Hotspur ownership who are based on the Bahamas), and it would be prudent for everyone to do the same. Saying she "might not be doing anything wrong" reads a lot differently than saying "she's innocent of any legal or moral wrongdoing".
Y'know, phrasing.
posted by lmfsilva at 11:36 AM on May 12, 2016
being in the Papers does not mean being a tax evader,
But also means it's far more likely they are. We can't say for sure, and assuming people we like are doing it for rainbows and blue skies and people we don't like are doing it to cheat taxes and trade weapons to third world countries without anything to back that up (so, sorry I'm not sorry, Mark Thatcher) is hypocrisy. I wouldn't put my hands on the fire for anyone caught in this mess or dealing with offshores (including, for instance, Tottenham Hotspur ownership who are based on the Bahamas), and it would be prudent for everyone to do the same. Saying she "might not be doing anything wrong" reads a lot differently than saying "she's innocent of any legal or moral wrongdoing".
Y'know, phrasing.
posted by lmfsilva at 11:36 AM on May 12, 2016
We can't say for sure, and assuming people we like are doing it for rainbows and blue skies and people we don't like are doing it to cheat taxes and trade weapons to third world countries without anything to back that up (so, sorry I'm not sorry, Mark Thatcher) is hypocrisy.
That would be hypocritical yes. But no one in this thread is doing that. Maybe the Guardian implicitly did it by leaving her off of their list, but then again, the list they published included folks like Jackie Chan (who I am going to assume is universally beloved absent any knowledge of facts that would make Jackie Chan into "people we don't like).
If anyone is being hypocritical here, it's the Reddit style folks who don't so much care about this issue except that an evil feminist is doing it.
Saying she "might not be doing anything wrong" reads a lot differently than saying "she's innocent of any legal or moral wrongdoing".
You're the only one in this thread who has used the word "innocent."
posted by sparklemotion at 11:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
That would be hypocritical yes. But no one in this thread is doing that. Maybe the Guardian implicitly did it by leaving her off of their list, but then again, the list they published included folks like Jackie Chan (who I am going to assume is universally beloved absent any knowledge of facts that would make Jackie Chan into "people we don't like).
If anyone is being hypocritical here, it's the Reddit style folks who don't so much care about this issue except that an evil feminist is doing it.
Saying she "might not be doing anything wrong" reads a lot differently than saying "she's innocent of any legal or moral wrongdoing".
You're the only one in this thread who has used the word "innocent."
posted by sparklemotion at 11:53 AM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
You're the only one in this thread who has used the word "innocent."
The word yes, and I may have mixed up the vibe here with other place (where I actually had read it first) where it was completely apologetic (in part because Reddit assholes see a hand and pull it down immediately), and I'm sorry if I came way too harsh here.
As for the Guardian not including her name in that list, without knowing if the Panama Papers original dump were all plain text or (more likely) a mix of scanned faxes and archives going back to the 70s plus plain text email dumps, it's possible she was overlooked in the original list because her name might appear an handful of times on what, 10 million documents? Some of the early names were probably pointers from the leaker about curious names (Chan, Cowell, Kubrick) that he noticed while gathering data.
posted by lmfsilva at 12:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
The word yes, and I may have mixed up the vibe here with other place (where I actually had read it first) where it was completely apologetic (in part because Reddit assholes see a hand and pull it down immediately), and I'm sorry if I came way too harsh here.
As for the Guardian not including her name in that list, without knowing if the Panama Papers original dump were all plain text or (more likely) a mix of scanned faxes and archives going back to the 70s plus plain text email dumps, it's possible she was overlooked in the original list because her name might appear an handful of times on what, 10 million documents? Some of the early names were probably pointers from the leaker about curious names (Chan, Cowell, Kubrick) that he noticed while gathering data.
posted by lmfsilva at 12:32 PM on May 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Hilariously Giant Goalie Pads | "I can’t say what their intent was" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The Guardian was on the right track here -- this isn't newsworthy.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:43 AM on May 11, 2016 [8 favorites]