As the paper's abstract says: "In recent history, the Panama Papers have comprised one of the largest and most influential leaks detailing information on offshore entities, company officers and financial (and legal) intermediaries, and has led to a global exposé of corruption and tax evasion. A systematic analysis of this information can provide valuable insights into the structure and properties of these entities and the relations between them. Network science can be applied as a scientific framework for understanding the structure of such relational, heterogeneous datasets at scale. In this article, we use an existing, relational version of the Panama Papers to selectively construct various networks, and then study the properties of the underlying system using well-defined analytical methods from network science, including degree properties, country assortativity analyses, connectivity and single-point network metrics like transitivity and density."
This is an attempt to make some sense out of this using the tools of Network Science[0].
I disagree that people couldn't understand the panama papers, we don't because we don't try. People like J.C. Sharman spell it out for us what's going on.
http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/rea...
we just don't read it. I've got his book. I haven't read it. But in the time that I've had it I've watched multiple garbage sci fi series.
Eventually you get to level up to the place of tax deferral that is infinite. You can do it onshore you can do if offshore. It is only hubris for some people to think some governments of their own choosing should have a piece of that. We are talking about the distinctly non corrupt activities.
It's stupid to play in the race to the bottom of governing power versus concentrated wealth. It's something captured/self-interested regulators do, not honest ones.
Revenue services are not worried with how much you pay them, they are only concerned with compliance.
It is not hubris. It is pragmatics. Moving to another county does not fully avoid contributing to the community where you live; you aren’t leaving the state, so state taxes still apply. The point is that rich people should pay their fair share of taxes and not be able to just buy their way out of it with fancy lawyers and accountants, thereby depriving governments of billions in taxes. This analogy just isn’t on the same order of magnitude.
However, I think our philosophies are too different for you to accept my argument because it rests on the premise that rich people should pay taxes, which I don’t think you believe. It seems to me that you believe that individuals can and should avoid contributing to their communities through taxation as much as they possibly can. No matter that this money is often used for social services and other non-profitable activities that help people in need.
I think the atomized, “I got mine” attitude meshes deeply with the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” attitude that tries to justify the Panama Papers stuff as on the same order of magnitude as getting cheap gas in another county. The concept of community doesn’t exist in this mindset; only a group of dragons sitting on their hoards whose sole interactions with each other are business transactions exists. I hope that changes.
To me the argument is “I’m mad we arent getting hosed equally” and rationalizing a phantom role of the state as if the state’s revenues would really improve and as if they would fund that infrastructure properly and that the infrastructure really had a meaningful effect on that wealthy person’s ability to do business reliably - or even keep the area safe and productive via improved social services. To which I would say thats all overestimated, and the state’s revenue sources should be reevaluated.