The Panama Papers: WikiLeaks ain't got nothing on it.

[Khendraja'aro]

That's merely hypocrisy, not illegal or corrupt. And I think hypocrisy is a bit overrated - I'd prefer people have high standards that they fail to meet on occasion rather than having lower standards they can easily surpass. We are all hypocritical in one way or another, and that doesn't mean that our ideals are wrong. It just means we are imperfect.

That's a nice sentiment but it's not a black-and-white matter.

Runs a campaign against high fructose corn syrups - is caught drinking a soft drink

is a bit different than

Runs a campaign against abortion - is caught supporting his daughter get rid of an unfortunate accident.

Also: It's not only "technically illegal", now that I have read up on it, it is plain illegal. Icelanders are expressly forbidden from transferring money to foreign countries. For example, if they want to buy a car from Sweden they have to write an application and transfer their money to the central bank. If the bank then approves the application the bank will buy the car for them.

So, it's pretty clear-cut.

[wiggin]

That's a nice sentiment but it's not a black-and-white matter.

Runs a campaign against high fructose corn syrups - is caught drinking a soft drink

is a bit different than

Runs a campaign against abortion - is caught supporting his daughter get rid of an unfortunate accident.

I can see two potential reasons why you draw this distinction, and I think both are open to critique.

First, you might argue that since reducing HFCS in food is more a matter of 'degree' and strict right and wrong, the occasional splurge does not invalidate the overall argument. However, I would argue that the woman who kills her husband in a fit of rage after finding him with his mistress most definitely did something wrong, but it does not invalidate her general stance that murder is wrong.

Secondly, you might argue that the HFCS/murder cases are 'crimes of passion', if you will. Perhaps a better formulation might be that these are sins related to appetite or emotion, and happen spur-of-the-moment - not something as calculated as carrying out an abortion. Yet that is also wrong - by every indication Bernie Madoff fully believed in leading a life of moral rectitude and probity in all of his business dealings, yet he perpetrated a massive, long fraud. I don't doubt the sincerity or value of his beliefs - my understanding is that he started the fraud to cover a bad quarter, and then it snowballed on him and he was unable to find a way to get out of it. People are remarkably able to convince themselves they are doing the right thing, even if it clearly contradicts the principles they hold dear.

My point isn't that hypocrisy is a good thing per se. But hypocrisy today has been elevated to the ultimate sin, the one unforgivable offense, especially for public officials. It is used as an excuse to dismiss the individual's argumentation in favor of a particular standard to which they fell short. Worse, it is used to tar all of their other positions as tainted. We are supposed to believe that because someone is a hypocrite, they must really disagree with the positions they espouse, as if they are incapable of cognitive dissonance or mental gymnastics. We can't evaluate their arguments in favor of a moral or policy position on their merits because they did not meet their own standards. This is nonsense! Evaluate the arguments on their merits, and judge the person's strength of character separately.

I suspect much of this has to do with the rise of moral relativism in our society. Moral relativism has a lot going for it IMO, but it does mean that there really are precious few 'sins' left we can all agree on. But hypocrisy is the perfect sin - we don't need to impose our own moral system on another to prove they are wrong, we merely need to use their own! And maybe that would be fine if we wanted everyone to come to a lowest common denominator of what we define as ethical behavior, and if we wanted to strangle effective policy debate. But that is not, IMO, an appropriate goal. Hypocrisy is not pleasant, and it may indeed be reason to find an individual distasteful, up to and including finding them unfit for public office. But don't use that as an excuse to say they were wrong, or that they didn't genuinely believe in what they were espousing.

Also: It's not only "technically illegal", now that I have read up on it, it is plain illegal. Icelanders are expressly forbidden from transferring money to foreign countries. For example, if they want to buy a car from Sweden they have to write an application and transfer their money to the central bank. If the bank then approves the application the bank will buy the car for them.

So, it's pretty clear-cut.

I don't have a good enough handle on either Icelandic law or the alleged offenses to evaluate this, so I'll assume you are correct.

[Khendraja'aro]

That his late father had (entirely legal) off-shore accounts in the 1970s is not news, the Guardian wrote about it back in 2012. However nothing has changed since four years ago, it's got sod all to do with David Cameron what his father did. Just as the Daily Mail attempting a hatchet job on the Labour leader's father was very weak, this is very weak too. Judge politicians what they've done in office, not what their dead parents did forty years ago

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016...-panama-papers

Called it.

[RandBlade]

Still seems much ado about nothing.

[earthJoker]

Still seems much ado about nothing.

[Steely Glint]

In case you were wondering, I believe the closest would be the Cumbria County Council Chief Executive, Diane Wood: http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/aboutyourc...mchiefexec.asp

Not to be confused with the rather more famous head of the US 7th Circuit's Appellate Court, who is routinely on SCOTUS shortlists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Wood

I knew they had *something* like that.

I don't know about you, but I think Icesave really affected a lot of people. If it was because Icelandic politicos were secretly in the pay of the financial sector looking for a low-regulation haven with access to EU markets, then potentially this is of substantial import, especially to UK taxpayers who bore the brunt of that mess. Granted, Iceland's implosion was still a minor side act to the financial crisis, but there are other small territories that are rather more important to the global financial system, and a financial crisis emanating from one of them could indeed be rather destabilizing - say, Singapore. The point is that size isn't really all that important for determining the impact of an individual's mismanagement of their responsibilities.

But the papers aren't about bribery, they're about having secret bank accounts and other mechanisms employed to evade or avoid paying tax. Bribery would be an altogether more serious matter and more destabilizing matter.

[Aimless]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016...-panama-papers

Called it.

Oshit. Only someone who can get away with having sex with a pig could come out of this unscathed.

[wiggin]

But the papers aren't about bribery, they're about having secret bank accounts and other mechanisms employed to evade or avoid paying tax. Bribery would be an altogether more serious matter and more destabilizing matter.

So IMO if the only issue is that he used legal means to avoid paying taxes (and he found it politically expedient to neglect to mention this in his disclosures), then I think it's rather less of a story. I don't even really get why it would cause so much consternation - it may be distasteful or somewhat hypocritical but it's hardly corrupt. (The legalities of lying on a required disclosure are obviously a potential reason for his to lose his job, but I don't really see it as a huge scandal.)

My point was rather broader - the real import of the Panama Papers is that some of the activity revealed is of the corrupt and criminal sort - you know, siphoning off billions of state funds, or laundering bribes, or tax evasion or whatever (the bribery part is much easier offshore because the true owners of assets can be easily obfuscated, meaning it's easy to pay off a politician without raising suspicions). And if a small head of state such as, say, Iceland, was implicated in such behavior, it would matter more than if the Chief Executive of Cumbria was implicated. That's all I'm getting at.

[RandBlade]

Oshit. Only someone who can get away with having sex with a pig could come out of this unscathed.

He had a legal £31.5k investment in a legal fund, which was sold legally before he became PM with all taxes paid in full.

Talk about a non-story.

[Khendraja'aro]

He had a legal £31.5k investment in a legal fund, which was sold legally before he became PM with all taxes paid in full.

Talk about a non-story.

That's not the issue. The issue is that he tried to stonewall - the idiot should have known from the start that this particular tactic does not work. Also, it's not the legality which is the point here, something you don't seem to want to comprehend.

All kinds of stuff is legal. Doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

[RandBlade]

The issue is still going to blow over. As it's a non story.

If there was any hint of illegality then the story would have legs, which YOU don't seem to understand. Without that it will be next week's fish wrapping.

[Khendraja'aro]

You have been wrong before, in this very thread even.

And calling something covered by numerous newspapers a "non story" is a bit of a stretch and makes me wonder about your command of the English language.

[RandBlade]

Where was I wrong?

Papers cover non-stories all the time. They have to have something to fill the papers on a daily basis, they don't only release an issue when there's something of merit to discuss.

[earthJoker]

Where was I wrong?

David Cameron isn't involved in this at all.

Important part in bold.

[Flixy]

While I don't think Cameron's involvement is a big deal, people here are talking like if it isn't illegal, it isn't an issue. Cheating on your wife with prostitutes isn't illegal either, but don't doubt that would have political consequences.

[Khendraja'aro]

Important part in bold.

Rand has ultra-short term memory in such cases. That's why he's certain it's not a big deal - chances are, he already has forgotten all about it.

[RandBlade]

"Rich person is rich and that is bad" is about the level of intellectual argument being thrown at Cameron at the moment, which is dumb. Sorry Flixy but whether something is legal or not does matter.

Cameron had entirely legal shares in a company he got from his father which he sold and paid all taxes on that were due, how is that involvement in a scandal? He never made any pretensions of not having a wealthy background.

[earthJoker]

Legally involved or not involved at all are still different things, at least where I come from.

[RandBlade]

At the time of writing he wasn't being said to be involved at all. That subsequently changed to being involved in a minor and legal amount with all taxes paid. Wow.

[Flixy]

"Rich person is rich and that is bad" is about the level of intellectual argument being thrown at Cameron at the moment, which is dumb. Sorry Flixy but whether something is legal or not does matter.

Cameron had entirely legal shares in a company he got from his father which he sold and paid all taxes on that were due, how is that involvement in a scandal? He never made any pretensions of not having a wealthy background.

I think you're being a bit naive (which I know you aren't) if you think only illegal things can be a scandal for a politician. Tax avoidance is by definition not illegal (or it would be tax evasion), but it can obviously be a political scandal. Though I agree with you in this case it seems a bit overblown, and to me, at this point, there doesn't seem to be anything he did wrong (I don't think we should blame anyone for what their parents did - though there is I suppose a point to be made about profitiing from what said parent did).

And reducing the argument to that is a big unfair too, for most people the issue is more "Rich person avoids taxes while I as a poor person have to pay mine" - which is a fair enough point.

And don't forget he himself called tax avoidance morally wrong, and I assume at least claims to be working on ways to reduce that, as most countries have recently. If a politician (in general, not talking about Cameron now) is found out to be doing exactly that, while saying he is trying to close those loopholes, he's not exactly credible and gives at least an air of (secret) self interest in keeping loopholes. Sure, it wouldn't be illegal, but it could be political suicide.

At the time of writing he wasn't being said to be involved at all. That subsequently changed to being involved in a minor and legal amount with all taxes paid. Wow.

The fact he was so specific, saying he didn't have offshore accounts right now, should tell you that even he realised before it broke that while not illegal, it would hurt him, at least politically.

[LittleFuzzy]

The fact he was so specific, saying he didn't have offshore accounts right now, should tell you that even he realised before it broke that while not illegal, it would hurt him, at least politically.

This must be where the gullible part of me comes out because I'd actually read that not as spin but as the necessary hedging while his staff/accountants/whoever frantically combed over his financial history to confirm if there were any such landmines hidden in there or not. His net worth is what, 45 million euros (well, household but still)? I don't expect someone like that to know which small parcels are in what funds, particularly inherited ones, nor do I expect their accountants to necessarily be able to stake their jobs on accurately answering the question that quickly. The one confirmed account in question was 1/20th of a percent of his net worth and they had to go over the entire history to find it and make sure it was the only one. Current investments sure, a fairly quick and accurate answer can be expected but not the entire history.

[RandBlade]

I think you're being a bit naive (which I know you aren't) if you think only illegal things can be a scandal for a politician. Tax avoidance is by definition not illegal (or it would be tax evasion), but it can obviously be a political scandal. Though I agree with you in this case it seems a bit overblown, and to me, at this point, there doesn't seem to be anything he did wrong (I don't think we should blame anyone for what their parents did - though there is I suppose a point to be made about profitiing from what said parent did).

If he'd been engaged in tax avoidance then yes it would be a scandal. But he hasn't, he's had an off-shore fund, which perhaps could have been used for tax avoidance which was the original story. But his shares in that fund where fully declared and disposed of prior to becoming PM and all proceeds from the sale were fully taxed.

That is the difference in the story between Cameron and the Icelandic PM. Cameron sold his shares for what they were worth, declared it to the taxman and paid his taxes. The Icelandic PM gifted his shares to his wife so they didn't have to be declared but could be kept in secret. I see a difference there, although normally for most politicians their wife having shares etc is perhaps unsurprisingly common and what the Icelandic PM has done was not that unusual in the grand scheme of things - what Cameron has done is inconsequential except for those with an axe to grind.

And reducing the argument to that is a big unfair too, for most people the issue is more "Rich person avoids taxes while I as a poor person have to pay mine" - which is a fair enough point.

But he didn't avoid his taxes, they were paid in full.

The fact he was so specific, saying he didn't have offshore accounts right now, should tell you that even he realised before it broke that while not illegal, it would hurt him, at least politically.

LF has put it better than I could.

[Steely Glint]

It's not a non-story, it does look bad. But Corbyn et al are trying to make way more political hay out of it than it's capable of sustaining.

[Flixy]

@LF: good point

@RB: at what point are you going to realise that I agree this isn't really an issue, just that I think you know better than to say that as long as something is legal it's not a scandal.

[RandBlade]

I'm not saying that if something isn't legal it is not a scandal. I'm saying that in instance it is neither illegal nor immoral.

Steely is right, at the moment all Cameron has to do when his back is against the wall is go to the Commons and make a speech and as soon as Corbyn stands up to attack Cameron we know Cameron is safe afterall.

[GGT]

The shadow banking system is alive and doing well, and it's perfectly "legal".

It isn't problematic just because only the upper echelon has access to this kind of tax aversion....but because they had enough political power to keep this kind of shit going, decade after decade. Developing nations have more to lose, and western nations shouldn't feel right about their complicity in these schemes, even though 'democracy' will continue.

The end result is that much-needed tax revenue (for things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, or even military) is left to the working stiffs who are struggling to keep up, while the "middle class" has been hollowed out.

[Dreadnaught]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1b/82/84/1b828434dae9eeca52080576870ff4b9.jpg

I've seen memes using the first two panels for maybe a year or so...I had no idea there were four more panels.

[Steely Glint]

So, the opinion polls are showing Lab down by 2.9% against Tories. Perhaps this panama papers weren't quite the devastating scandal labour hoped it would be.

Milliband, known loser of elections, was 5% up at the same point last time round. This inspite of all kinds of hilarious fuck ups from the Tory side of the house. Corbyn was suppose to ruin the Labour party to ruin by being too much of a left-wing firebrand. Instead, he's just totally ineffectual. Legit not cut out for the job, quite aside from his actual policy positions. Wish he'd go round saying stuff like "bomb israel and behead anyone with a networth over half a million", at least that'd be entertaining.

[RandBlade]

LOL that despite the Tories tearing themselves apart over the EU. Labour should be having a double-digit lead right now.

Who'd have thought that someone who had never held any form of ministerial post, never done anything productive in his entire career and never been a team player ... would turn out not to be a natural leader.

[Steely Glint]

Nothing much ever did come of this, except one of the journalists involved in breaking the story - Daphne Caruana Galizia - was murdered yesterday with a car bomb.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ers-journalist

So there's that.