From the affair Panama Papers It seems to me that, on the 1 hand, it shows a change in the public's approach to concealing income from taxation – even 10 years ago in Poland and the United States, it would most likely be dominant to indulge in a well-known cognitive mistake "businessmen like me and Kulczyk gotta defend themselves from tax" – and on the another hand, the deficiency of a good political consequence to this change.
Panama became a money launderer through a trade deal with the US. Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are up to their necks in all this – signing specified agreements was a flagship of the Democratic economical policy behind Clinton (Billa).
The 1990s is the highest minute of global neoliberalism. Even the alleged left (Blair, Schroeder, Clinton) convert to the free marketplace and believe that wealth will yet begin to catch on.
The transformation of GATT into WTO, NAFTA and MERCOSUR treaties, and even to any degree extending the European Union to us, is an expression of this belief. And the last sigh of dying ideology is the TPP and TTIP treaties that Obama wants to push through at the end of his term.
TTIP Initially, he was to be called TAFTA and this rebranding shows that even to the establishment it has already reached that NAFTA has negative associations in America. Because, as we know, wealth does not realize – the consequence of these treaties was Eldorado for the advanced 1% and the deterioration or maximum stagnation for the lower 99%.
Establishment has no political language to talk of today. "The planet is in crisis, it needs another free trade treaty to get out of it" – politicians of all mainstream political parties in Poland will tell us about TTIP. In the U.S., Hillary Clinton and the non-psychotic Republican organization politicians will say the same thing (although of course they will do the spite of Obama as part of Obama's general anger-making).
Only left-wing opposition politicians have the right language to criticize specified dealas—actually left-wing, not specified a leszkomillero-ryskokaliszo-rokopalikocie. That is Sanders, Corbyn, Warufakis, and in Poland organization Together.
Here, of course, the similarities disappear. In Poland Together is inactive a margin, Sanders and Corbyn are already mainstream. Even if Clinton gets the nomination, it's at the expense of missing his program, or at least rhetoric.
Probably my blog is read by people who have not yet full recovered from any form of belief in “trickle down” and, for example, think TTIP is simply a good idea. Or in any variant of Witold Gadomski's publicist that there is nothing incorrect in the phenomenon itself, due to the fact that people should have any kind of asylum before a gluttonous tax.
That's another explanation for what's incorrect with that. In my 2013 book I wrote (after Shaxson) that the concept of "tax paradise" is truly confusing. It's not about getting distant from taxes, it's about getting distant from the records.
Under average conditions, a man (or corporation) who spins large sums of money of unknown origin will rapidly attract the attention of the prosecutor. A taxation haven is simply a way to legalize these sums.
Therefore, those who think that Poland could (or should: should) become a taxation haven itself simply lowering taxes are mistaken. A taxation haven is created by individual else, any larger partner, who, for any reason, tells a smaller partner (usually politically dependent) "I will overlook your unreliable accounting towards my elites."
Therefore, "general intent taxation havens" seldom occur. Gabon is simply a paradise for the French elite. Cyprus for Russian. Netherlands Antilles is simply a way of laundering money flowing between the US and the Union (that's why they like cybercorps so much) – and so on.
Because the key here is the deficiency of transparency and reliable records, 1 cannot believe people who say they didn't want to do anything incorrect in Panama, they just had any business idea. We'd gotta take their word for they were willing to pay dearly for hiding their income... I don't truly know why.
I'd sooner believe Piskorski that he was so fortunate in roulette.
