Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   New study shows that the rich are hiding between $21-32 trillion in offshore tax havens around the world. A sum greater than the entire US economy and enough to bail out all of the EU and put Africa on its feet   (guardian.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Asinine, tax havens  
•       •       •

3865 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2012 at 2:47 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-22 11:12:56 AM  

mark rathburn: Gee, you're right, I never heard Obama rant about how the rich aren't paying their fair share, or that there needs to be more environmental and financial regulation, or that banks and corporations are evil. It's almost like the president has NO ROLE in creating the economic and regulatory climate of the country. I can't imagine WHY those corporations would get nervous every time he takes the podium


That's why he used his influence to set the tax rate at it's lowest point in 60 years!

Where you goin with this again?
 
2012-07-22 11:13:39 AM  

mark rathburn: The tax code is set by?


mark rathburn: Obama rant



Do you see the difference?
 
2012-07-22 11:15:40 AM  

mark rathburn: Gee, you're right, I never heard Obama rant about how the rich aren't paying their fair share, or that there needs to be more environmental and financial regulation, or that banks and corporations are evil. It's almost like the president has NO ROLE in creating the economic and regulatory climate of the country. I can't imagine WHY those corporations would get nervous every time he takes the podium


Oh dear, you've backslid from "both sides are bad" to WHAAARRRGARBL OBAMA. Ah well. Thus ends Sunday "play with trolls" day.

Enjoy.
 
2012-07-22 11:22:05 AM  

Dog Welder: Okay, so we can't tax all that stuff, but here's something I've never understood.

If you have $10 billion in cash just sitting in bank accounts somewhere, WHY?

I'm pretty sure I could live beyond comfortably and not have to brush elbows with society's riffraff like me with only a measly $1 billion in my bank account. Why not do something...anything...productive and good with that money?

Bill Gates has given away more money than most of us would see in 100 lifetimes. I applaud that.

But too many of these people are so concerned about proving they have a bigger bank account than someone else, it's just sickening.


And the "fair tax" wouldn't touch a dime of it.
 
2012-07-22 11:31:23 AM  
I find this number hard to believe. That's the wealth of a thousand Bill Gateses, and the vast majority of ultra-rich don't even come close to Gates.

I mean, total global market capitalization is on the order of $50 trillion.
 
2012-07-22 11:31:28 AM  
1. Both the Democrats and the Republicans write the tax code to favor the rich
2. Both Democrats and Republicans take full advantage of these rules to enrich themselves
3. This is not going to change, no matter how much whining occurs
4. However, Democrats still need to be elected, so they need to keep their base enraged at how evil corporations are and how the rich don't pay their share.
5. Republicans are just as bad (which is to say, they are politicians) but are less hypocritical about it
6. Since the country will never be able collect enough revenue to fully implement the progressive agenda (which will just expand to absorb any increase in revenue anyway) maybe we should try, for the first time in history, spending less money?
 
2012-07-22 11:31:34 AM  
And that money is rightfully mine to spend on my bastard children and a retirement for which I don't want to bother saving.

/why do liberals assume that everybody else's wealth is rightfully theirs?
//highways != social welfare
 
2012-07-22 11:36:46 AM  

beta_plus: And that money is rightfully mine to spend on my bastard children and a retirement for which I don't want to bother saving.

/why do liberals assume that everybody else's wealth is rightfully theirs?
//highways != social welfare


we've all gotta pay our taxes. we might not like it...but we gotta pay it. that includes the 1% - they gotta pay up as well.
 
2012-07-22 11:37:17 AM  
fudiculous.com
 
2012-07-22 11:37:41 AM  

mark rathburn: No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century


You appear to be very wrong and stupid, so allow me to bring you up to speed:

"Progressive" was a social movement that came about in the 1890s and peaked in the 1920s with the rise of the leisure class, the flapper chic and the empowerment of women in areas of finance, politics and law. It was a stark social reaction to the "Gilded Age" of post-Civil War America which saw rapid advancements in manufacturing and industrial productivity but at the expense of standard of living, as extreme inequitable distribution of affluence led to three crushing Depressions (and almost a fourth) and two World Wars.

Progressivism essentially refers to the moral and ethical interactions between groups of people and seeks to improve them (ie: progress). Progressive politics marked the beginning of social righteousness, and while not everyone agrees with all of its activist causes (women's suffrage, prohibition, civil rights, labor laws, etc.), I think everyone can agree that it has effectively made life a little more pleasant for the average person.

While the typical reaction is to paint progressivism as a leftist movement and make the correlation to the totalitarian nation-states of the 20th century as leftist movements and hence just as bad, in truth progressivism is mostly apolitical. You must understand that political, economic and social ideologies describe almost completely separate apparatuses of human organization, each containing a wide spectrum of value sets, and that adherence to one does not automatically entail adherence to others.
 
2012-07-22 11:39:18 AM  
The rich didn't make that money.

Someone else made that happen.
 
2012-07-22 11:44:47 AM  

mark rathburn: 6. Since the country will never be able collect enough revenue to fully implement the progressive agenda (which will just expand to absorb any increase in revenue anyway) maybe we should try, for the first time in history, spending less money?


What would you suggest we cut? I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours first.
 
2012-07-22 11:45:07 AM  

Ishkur: You appear to be very wrong and stupid, so allow me to bring you up to speed:

wilfully obtuse bullshiat



Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country
 
2012-07-22 11:45:44 AM  

pdee: So long as democrats insist on plundering corporate profits earned over seas those profits stay over seas.


But then they wouldn't have been plundered.
 
2012-07-22 11:46:06 AM  

mark rathburn: Both the Democrats and the Republicans write the tax code to favor the rich



So why when they have enough votes do Democrats raise the capital gains and top marginal tax rates?

Oops, that goes against your "both sides are bad" Libertarian propaganda
 
2012-07-22 11:49:24 AM  

mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country


Why not just write, "envy motivates the leftist impulse to confiscate and control?" It's still shallow, redundant, and meaningless, but it leaves you less exhausted.
 
2012-07-22 11:49:45 AM  

mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country


It seems that you are using technical terminology different than the rest of us and it is creating some confusion. To get everyone on the same page here, can you explain for us what you think a "leftist" actually is, so we can proceed along a more copacetic framework of discussion?
 
2012-07-22 11:53:14 AM  

mark rathburn: Ishkur: You appear to be very wrong and stupid, so allow me to bring you up to speed:

wilfully obtuse bullshiat


Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country


Confiscate and control, sounds like the impulse in the super rich to think they are entitled to tax free gains and everyone who dares question them is just envious
 
2012-07-22 11:54:21 AM  

thamike: mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country

Why not just write, "envy motivates the leftist impulse to confiscate and control?" It's still shallow, redundant, and meaningless, but it leaves you less exhausted.


The words are too big.
 
2012-07-22 11:54:37 AM  

intelligent comment below: Confiscate and control, sounds like the impulse in the super rich to think they are entitled to tax free gains and everyone who dares question them is just envious


Only progressive socialist totalitarian Nazis believe in the "social contract."
 
2012-07-22 11:55:49 AM  

intelligent comment below: Confiscate and control, sounds like the impulse in the super rich to think they are entitled to tax free gains and everyone who dares question them is just envious


You are trying to convince a sycophant.
 
2012-07-22 11:56:26 AM  

mark rathburn: wilfully obtuse bullshiat


Oh, and can you point out which parts of my explanation was willfully obtuse and why? It's pretty accepted in academic circles that progressivism was a Gilded Age social movement that fought for lenient conditions and minority rights in all areas of leisure, politics, the workplace and law. How was any of it bullshiat when it was based on substantial facts and evidence? And can you cite any counter-claims to my assertion?
 
2012-07-22 11:57:07 AM  

rohar: thamike: mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country

Why not just write, "envy motivates the leftist impulse to confiscate and control?" It's still shallow, redundant, and meaningless, but it leaves you less exhausted.

The words are too big.


I've found that when people ascribe natural impulses (that is, make the case that certain impulses are a natural result of one's self-identification, not that the impulses fall within a general set of being natural) to an identity, they're full of bullshiat and end up sounding like Nazis talking about Jews. Call Godwin on me, but when you say "leftists" or "progressives" or any singular group doesn't simply disagree with you, but is possessing of a fundamental nature that makes them bad, you're dealing with some very bad rhetorical juju.
 
2012-07-22 11:59:04 AM  
Gotta go to a barbeque- let me know when the Democrats get around to re-writing the tax code so that John Kerry is paying his 'fair share' LOL
 
2012-07-22 11:59:53 AM  

Ishkur: mark rathburn: No, I am saying the progressive ideology was behind the worst atrocities of the last century

You appear to be very wrong and stupid, so allow me to bring you up to speed:

"Progressive" was a social movement that came about in the 1890s and peaked in the 1920s with the rise of the leisure class, the flapper chic and the empowerment of women in areas of finance, politics and law. It was a stark social reaction to the "Gilded Age" of post-Civil War America which saw rapid advancements in manufacturing and industrial productivity but at the expense of standard of living, as extreme inequitable distribution of affluence led to three crushing Depressions (and almost a fourth) and two World Wars.

Progressivism essentially refers to the moral and ethical interactions between groups of people and seeks to improve them (ie: progress). Progressive politics marked the beginning of social righteousness, and while not everyone agrees with all of its activist causes (women's suffrage, prohibition, civil rights, labor laws, etc.), I think everyone can agree that it has effectively made life a little more pleasant for the average person.

While the typical reaction is to paint progressivism as a leftist movement and make the correlation to the totalitarian nation-states of the 20th century as leftist movements and hence just as bad, in truth progressivism is mostly apolitical. You must understand that political, economic and social ideologies describe almost completely separate apparatuses of human organization, each containing a wide spectrum of value sets, and that adherence to one does not automatically entail adherence to others.


you know what the worst part of everything you just typed is? jesus was an extraterrestrial.
/shouldn't be obscure
 
2012-07-22 12:00:12 PM  
Gee, i never would have guessed that......
 
2012-07-22 12:01:31 PM  

batcookie: This is my surprised face.
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 600x600]

Like I always said, it's a load of bull that we don't have the resources to go around. We just don't like to share because human beings are childish little shiats.



a truly democratic republic would prevent these things. course, we no longer have a democratic republic and the wealthy love it that way!
 
2012-07-22 12:02:08 PM  

skinnycatullus: Well, I'm sure they worked harder than the rest of us so they deserve that money, right?


yea....that's it.
 
2012-07-22 12:02:44 PM  
New Farkin User Name
2012-07-22 03:01:23 AM
fusillade762: Pretty soon it's going to be nothing but the super-rich and the poverty stricken with nothing in between. Wonder what will happen then?


If history teaches us anything at all, then THIS:

img.ehowcdn.com

jeffreyhill.typepad.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

frontline-org-za.win03.glodns.net

www.seattlecatholic.com

And Finally, THIS:
static.ddmcdn.com
 
2012-07-22 12:03:02 PM  

propasaurus: It'll trickle down. Like any day now.



the other 98% are getting a deluge............of piss.
 
2012-07-22 12:04:04 PM  

mark rathburn: Gotta go to a barbeque- let me know when the Democrats get around to re-writing the tax code so that John Kerry is paying his 'fair share' LOL



Aren't you supposed to be going to the gym first?
 
2012-07-22 12:04:16 PM  

Greil: you know what the worst part of everything you just typed is? jesus was an extraterrestrial.
/shouldn't be obscure


Yeah, I know it falls on deaf ears, but it wasn't for him, it was for everybody else.
 
2012-07-22 12:05:27 PM  

Ishkur: Greil: you know what the worst part of everything you just typed is? jesus was an extraterrestrial.
/shouldn't be obscure

Yeah, I know it falls on deaf ears, but it wasn't for him, it was for everybody else.


just so long as you're aware. thanks for that info, btw, it was new to me at least.
 
2012-07-22 12:06:13 PM  

Bloody William: rohar: thamike: mark rathburn: Whatever word you want to describe the leftist impulse to confiscate and control, it's the same politics of envy that motivates the left in this country

Why not just write, "envy motivates the leftist impulse to confiscate and control?" It's still shallow, redundant, and meaningless, but it leaves you less exhausted.

The words are too big.

I've found that when people ascribe natural impulses (that is, make the case that certain impulses are a natural result of one's self-identification, not that the impulses fall within a general set of being natural) to an identity, they're full of bullshiat and end up sounding like Nazis talking about Jews. Call Godwin on me, but when you say "leftists" or "progressives" or any singular group doesn't simply disagree with you, but is possessing of a fundamental nature that makes them bad, you're dealing with some very bad rhetorical juju.


I'd have to agree and I'm guessing I'm pretty far to the right of you. That's probably why I posted that Chomsky quote. Rhetoric has replaced reason. Well hell, as long as I'm posting quotes, this one seems pertinent to this new troll:

The US system cannot use coercion (well, not at the Soviet level, at any rate, but the way things are going, give it time), so it must rely solely on propaganda, which must be believed. This means it's got to be very subtle and psychologically simple and attractive, rather than blatant and absurd, to be at once unobtrusive and effective. It's no coincidence that the mother of marketing and advertising originates here. If you step out of line, the government does not need to come after you: business, the media, and even the public itself will. They cannot jail, torture, or disappear you (the system is testing the waters, though), but they will try to marginalize you, and make it very difficult to function professionally and socially. And at least insofar as members of the public are concerned, they are enforcers without realizing it. Quite elegant.

--Fabian Pascal
from Lenin, Trotzky and Relief from the Tyranny of Knowledge and Reason
 
2012-07-22 12:07:18 PM  

intelligent comment below: mark rathburn: Gotta go to a barbeque- let me know when the Democrats get around to re-writing the tax code so that John Kerry is paying his 'fair share' LOL


Aren't you supposed to be going to the gym first?


Barbecue indulges him, it never asks questions. Barbecue only loves unconditionally, you heartless bastard.
 
2012-07-22 12:09:26 PM  

mark rathburn: Gotta go to a barbeque


And that's how you chase a troll out of the thread, people.

Simply ask him questions.
 
2012-07-22 12:13:00 PM  

Ishkur: And that's how you chase a troll out of the thread, people.

Simply ask him questions.


Or you could simply ignore the plead for attention...
 
2012-07-22 12:28:06 PM  
Soooo, successful people should give their money away to losers, because....?
 
2012-07-22 12:38:37 PM  

SevenizGud: Soooo, successful people should give their money away to losers, because....?


Tag team trolling.
 
2012-07-22 12:44:24 PM  

SevenizGud: Soooo, successful people should give their money away to losers, because....?


Losers need money? It's your thing, man. I'm just trying to make sense of it.
 
2012-07-22 12:51:56 PM  

beta_plus: And that money is rightfully mine to spend on my bastard children and a retirement for which I don't want to bother saving.

/why do liberals assume that everybody else's wealth is rightfully theirs?
//highways != social welfare


The hell they don't. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to ship anything without highways? It takes months to get from St. Louis to Los Angeles without highways; with them it takes 2 days. The Federal Highway system is one of the biggest and most successful social welfare programs in human history, and don't even get me started on rail and air travel -both of which were initially public-private partnerships- or freight and maritime standardization which, again, were largely the product of public policy.
 
2012-07-22 12:53:15 PM  
You have to think anyone defending this is either super rich or super stupid.
 
2012-07-22 12:57:16 PM  

fusillade762: Pretty soon it's going to be nothing but the super-rich and the poverty stricken with nothing in between. Wonder what will happen then?



oops, the real power is always with the masses, but only if they decide to take power back.
 
2012-07-22 12:58:57 PM  

rudemix: You have to think anyone defending this is either super rich or super stupid.



or both.
 
2012-07-22 01:00:04 PM  

propasaurus: It'll trickle down. Like any day now.



cause Ronnie Raygun said so!
 
2012-07-22 01:01:47 PM  

thamike: SevenizGud: Soooo, successful people should give their money away to losers, because....?

Losers need money? It's your thing, man. I'm just trying to make sense of it.



lol. he's still in diapers.
 
2012-07-22 01:18:58 PM  

jodaveki: randomjsa: The problem is that too much money is being spent on unsustainable things.

What exactly are these unsustainable things that should be defunded?


One of the most frequently cited is Social Security, which is ironic because it's self-funded and even ran a surplus until very recently.

Never cited is the military, which has never raised a single dollar to cover its costs.
 
2012-07-22 01:22:30 PM  
Do a one time "repatriation" tax break and watch most of that money pour back into the United States economy.
 
2012-07-22 01:26:08 PM  
It's not about wealth anymore it's about control.

/ Welfare mothers make better lovers
 
2012-07-22 01:29:05 PM  

Spare Me: Do a one time "repatriation" tax break and watch most of that money pour back into the United States economy.


1.bp.blogspot.com
Tried that one beginning of the second term, and the economy has been nothing but awesome since. Oh, wait...
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report