Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't think these vague emotional statements are constructive.

The rules outlined in the article apply to everyone, not just the rich, and they should be fixed for everyone, not just the rich.

In this case leaking Jeff Bezos' tax returns targeted one individual and provided no new useful information. It's exactly what we already expected about his taxes.

...and frankly, the "rich are evil - look how they don't pay taxes on unrealized gains" is a huge distraction from fixing the actual problems with the tax system.

We need to eliminate foreign tax havens, and severely limit non-profit "Foundations".



Rules aren’t set in stone, they can change based on leaks like this.

Assuming people find this information objectionable that’s a reasonable justification to publish. In much the same way that leaking classified documents about questionable activities is morally justified, though illegal. Otherwise stamping secret on any evidence of say torture would work.


I find the leak objectionable. It doesn’t disclose any nefarious doings or tax evasion. All it does is verify what we already know. No revelation.

So this is more about shaming the witch rather than showing the witch did witchery.


Are you also opposed to

the Watergate leaks?

Snowden's leaks?

the Pentagon Papers?

and a lot of less famous leaks of restricted information that have led to exposure and sometimes even justice for people who otherwise would have hid behind "legal" defenses for immoral or flat out illegal acts of their own?

I served in the Navy - I had a prety high clearance just to do the job I did. I know the value of classifying or otherwise restricting information. And I know the value of breaking those rules to expose those who would hide their crimes.

I consider the current tax code a recipe/playbook/script for stealing from the American public.


You are presenting an example of government cover ups or crimes. This is not the government doing something wrong, not even a private person doing something wrong.

It’s simple some vigilante having a vendetta against someone they don’t like and using illegal mans to skewer them.

The case they have is known. We know the loopholes. Let's as close them. Don’t go out on personal or vendettas of virtue when it aids nothing. There is nothing new here. Jeff, as much as I dislike his company, didn’t commit a crime.


> It’s simple some vigilante having a vendetta against someone they don’t like and using illegal mans to skewer them.

If the leak's target did nothing illegal or unethical with their taxes, then how are they being skewered? Their taxes would just show them to be an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, right?

So sure, you can claim all you like that we already knew about these holes, but abstract arguments and aggregate data are far less persuasive and motivating than specific examples that clearly show the stark reality.

Or are you forgetting how the George Floyd video galvanized a world-wide movement despite everyone already "knowing" that racism is bad, that it exists, that police training is subpar and that bad cops kill people of colour?


You're being coy.

As if Twitter and all other social media media weren't about taking things and reframing them to make targets into bad people.


You mean ordinary people might develop a bad view of the untouchably wealthy because of the system they created to preserve their wealth? Cry me a river.


>preserve their wealth

Like it or not, they created it.

Should we extract more taxes from them, yes, arguably. But we don't have to resort to blackmail or other underworld tactics since it really accomplishes nothing other than momentary outrage by the mob.

Get congress to enact laws that close loopholes.


You don’t actually become extremely wealthy by creating wealth, you become wealthy by extracting wealth from other people’s work.

Either by inheriting it or some business arrangement where you keep value created by other people. Bill Gates for example didn’t code Windows 7 himself. JK Rawlings didn’t print millions of Harry Potter books or even produce the movies etc. Sorts superstars don’t build stadiums or collect ticket sales etc.

This is most obvious with investments dividends. As such thinking of capital gains as the fruit of their effort is really kind of a silly idea.


> Get congress to enact laws that close loopholes.

And we do that by exposing the problems of the existing system and galvanizing people to demand change. Which is what these articles are doing.


It’s your option that these people did nothing wrong. However, many legal things like adultery are still objectionable and people object to this.


the more appropriate comparison in your case would be an open marriage where one partner complains the other is cheating. They set up the rules then complain someone is taking advantage of the rules.

I myself would like Jeff to pay more in taxes. I think the super wealthy pay too little in terms of parentage, but I should be upset with the Congress/IRS not the wealthy.


PS: To better use your analogy, suppose rich guy X, had an open relationship with their spouse (the government) and then started dating someone without mentioning their marriage. That’s much closer to what’s going on because it’s not a question of if what they did was legal but rather the secretary around it and the impact on society.


No, because it’s not the government complaining. The people complaining didn’t create the rules as such the rules are irrelevant to their complaint.

Really, it’s not a question of laws but one of obligations to society as a whole. Because society and the government are different entities but society depends on it’s government.


"All it does is verify what we already know."

Wait. What who already knows?

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who read this article did not already know the information contained within.

As such the article serves to educate a lot of people, which is a positive development.


I don’t think the author needed leaked data to present their objections to tax minimization.


They absolutely did.

That something is legally within the bounds of the US tax code is public knowledge.

That ultra-wealthy utilize something to an extent is not public knowledge.

Which cuts to one of the central issues with viewing the US tax code as democratic: there's almost no transparency of use.

The public might feel very different about a particular tax rule if they knew small businesses primarily used it, vs if they knew major corporations used it to shield 90% of their profits.

The IRS should do a better job of anonymizing actual tax reports, and reporting out on patterns in aggregate.


Talk to any software engineer in the valley and they do a lot of the same stuff that Bezos does. The "trick" of not paying taxes until you sell the stock is something I do all the time. It's not a trick even.


But it does provide direct evidence (that average people can link to prior knowledge) in support of those objections.


>>Rules aren't set in stone

The problem with that argument is who get to make that decision? Would you still be saying that if someone leaked you tax records to the general public?


Tbh i think tax records should be public. It is in Sweden for example and that works pretty well.


Yep, I have no objection to people leaking any of my tax details beyond identify theft.


Anybody who has your full tax records has your name, your current and previous addresses, social security number, how much you make, your place of work, the name(s) of your children (if you file as head of household or for child tax credits), etc. What makes you think this treasure trove of information isn't going be used for identity theft? It's like saying you have no objections to someone breaking into your car or house and stealing your stuff, so long as they don't take your driver's license or registration papers and pretend to be you.


At this point, I've come to believe that the real goal has nothing to do with actually fixing the system. I see it time and time again where articles like this get written and the proposals that follow focus solely on increasing income tax and proposing some form of a wealth tax. Nothing about closing the loop holes that allow this situation to happen in the first place.


> In this case leaking Jeff Bezos' tax returns targeted one individual and provided no new useful information. It's exactly what we already expected about his taxes.

I completely agree with your overall point, but this statement is not true. Solid concrete evidence of what we "already expected" _is_ new information. (also, as other commenters have pointed out - what _you_ already expected is not necessarily what the average person already expected)


>In this case leaking Jeff Bezos' tax returns targeted one individual and provided no new useful information. It's exactly what we already expected about his taxes.

I think when he owns the Washington post, it becomes of the public interest.

Hell, in Norway literally everyone's salary is public information. Hasn't seemed to do them any harm either.


“We need to eliminate foreign tax havens”

or more succinctly:

“We need to condemn the families and businesses in places like those tiny island nations in the Caribbean to more poverty”

Those tax havens exist because they realize that a very real thing they can offer as a service is a place to domicile a business and capital. Not everyone wants to go to Ireland for its nice beaches you know.


How does Google funneling billions of dollars in revenue through Bermuda help the families there who are living in poverty?

Google's only presence in Bermuda was a P.O. box.


When you use Bermuda like that, you pay various fees to do so (registration fees, banking fees), and money ultimately goes into the national budget from that. The state then invests in infrastructure and some job creation from that national budget.

Similarly, when Caribbean nations sell citizenship to foreigners seeking easier travel or tax optimization (another avenue they have explored into order to diversify their economies), the foreigner typically pays a fee in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for the passport, and that goes into the national budget.


lawyers, buildings, contracts, the person selling keys for PO Box, guards to watch over your PO Box, mail system.

Plus all the other things on top that are associated to flying in to Bermuda for the week of business to setup your PO BOX.

Oh and then there’s the airport, staff to maintain the airport.

All that plus more for a simple PO box


It seems incredibly unseemly to go after the airport staff in the Bahamas more than the tax dodgers you’re angry at.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: