Some of the people who defend the ultra-rich are also the ones who claim to be in favour of free markets. A small bit of economic orthodoxy is that for free markets to work, parties need to be informed (and externalities priced in, but that's another story). This is not just in terms of "this is the price of bananas" but also in terms of knowing eg what various salaries are, which businesses are profitable, etc.
How can we have free markets when we don't even know who owns what?
As for taxation, there needs to be an overhaul. Things need to be simpler, and I say this as someone who has used international tax advisors. There's no reason the tax guy's diagram of your business should be more complicated than your own diagram. Moving profits to other countries shouldn't be possible, or rather, it should be more fixed by the nature of the business than by the desires of the CFO. We simply hear too much about "selling IP rights" to subsidiaries and similar schemes that are clearly meant to lower tax rather than increase revenue. Granted some things will be legitimate, but it's important that some vague concept of fairness is adhered to. This again goes back to transparency. We invented corporations to help improve society, so we ought to know what kinds of things people are doing with them.
Edit:
Perhaps the way to see it is, if you say "we make money by selling coffees in the UK" you would expect that entity to report a tax structure that contains a bunch of coffee and UK related entries. Reporting to investors ought to mirror reporting to the taxman.
What I see here is tax evasion. But done in a roundabout legal loopholish kind of way.
1. Establish profitable company in your home country.
2. Establish 2nd company in a tax haven country.
3. Give 2nd company some kind of ownership, and then pay rental fees, licensing fees, or simply set up a high interest loan that the 2nd company loaned the first.
4. Once you set up a way to make it look like you owe the 2nd company tons of money, now your 1st company no longer is "profitable" and actually in debt losing money, which means it doesn't need to pay taxes on the massive profit it's making.
While I believe it's legal it hinges on bad ethical practice. But many large companies do this, such as cruise ships and I think Apple.
> Once you set up a way to make it look like you owe the 2nd company tons of money, now your 1st company no longer is "profitable" and actually in debt losing money, which means it doesn't need to pay taxes on the massive profit it's making.
Short of a revenue (as opposed to income) corporate tax or VAT, it’s a very tricky problem to address. Maybe an excise tax on foreign remittances to match the highest corporate bracket.
Or you just scrap corporate tax entirely because it’s a terrible idea anyway.
It is technically tax avoidance. Tax evasion = not paying taxes you legally owe, is a crime. Tax avoidance = using legal means to reduce the amount of tax you owe, not a crime (by definition).
This is why I support taxes such as those that France levies on digital revenue originating within their country. I also think it makes sense to wholly eliminate corporation taxes (which are not only avoidable, but are a form of double taxation) and replace them with these revenue taxes.
Step 4 glosses over a ton of details but is sufficiently correct in Apple's case, which pioneered the Double Irish. That was supposed to stop in 2020, but unless you keep up with the world of corporate finance and global tax law, things keep shifting.
Apple's easy to pick on, they're one of the richest companies in the world and should pay more taxes. But for companies that are less successful, it's entirely possible that the second company is actually losing money. Without an appropriately sized army to track through the 200th company (tracking transactions between two companies is simplified to make the tax evasion easy to understand. Real world tax evasion is dramatically more complicated.)
What I never understood is, (how) does the money get transferred to the home country eventually? Doesn't it need to do that to have some utility? Otherwise, what's the point of just accumulating money offshore that you can't eventually use where you actually are?
The step here that is illegal is the moment company 1 takes out a high interest loan from company 2.
Company 1's directors have to do what is in the best interests of the company. If they choose to sign up to a high interest loan which will take all their profits, that isn't decision-making in the best interests of company 1. That's the point they can be put in prison.
I just don't quite understand how nobody is prosecuting them...
The thing with all of these is that the rich people are probably just as surprised as you are to show up in these leaks in most cases.
When you get barely rich, like single digit millions, the banks will start to offer you "family office" services. They basically just take care of everything for you. You send them all your money and all your debts (even your phone bills and stuff), and they promise to make sure there is more at the end of the year than the start. They invest for you, they do accounting and file taxes for you. You give them limited power of attorney so you don't even see the tax forms.
If you ask how it all works, they tell you it's really complicated and you should just focus on doing whatever it is that made you rich and let them worry about managing the money for you. Sometimes they do ethical stuff, sometimes not, depending on which bank and which consultant you hire.
I'm not excusing the people who are here, just explaining how some people who you thought were good people end up in these leaks.
I was very excited when Panama papers came out. Intrigued when Paradise papers leaked. But now? Damning evidence of outright crimes came out and nothing happened. In the UK IIRC it was found that David Cameron evaded some taxes via offshore funds, and? He said he’s very sorry and didn’t mean to, and that was it.
Everyone knew before and after the rich don’t pay taxes. We don’t need more evidence, we need action.
Without meaning insult, I think you should review the outcome of the Panama papers leak again – it may have been a while. There has been a staggering amount of legal and financial recourse from the leak in countries spanning the globe.
Frankly, I don't know of much else like that leak in history in terms of its global impact.
I've wondered a lot about this with the Snowden and Wikileaks stuff, and I wonder about it with this topic too: the most salient part of this story, and about Panama Papers etc. before it, is how small a dent it seems to make in the discourse, and in the world as a result. At best, these stories get a good chunk of the airwaves for a couple of weeks, and then it's on to the next thing.
In history books, you get a sense sometimes that there were eras in which stuff like this sent people into the streets in rages. In which governments were voted out or overthrown, in which meaningful legislative responses were made. Or, you know, riots.
But I look around after reading those books and wonder what makes us so different. It's weird to live in this era. I read a Guardian article like this and look at the staggering sums, this entire "shadow financial system" devoted solely to one notion: I'm going to take as much as I can, in whatever way that I can, regardless of legality, and I'm going to give nothing back because I sincerely don't believe I owe anything back -- oh, and I'm going to keep it all a secret.
And I look around and not only don't see any riots; I sometimes get the feeling that people are actually envious, sometimes even respectful of the ingenuity it takes to manufacture these schemes. It's tough.
The only silver lining I can think of is what all the secrecy says: we're not just doing this in the open because we're still afraid we'll end up like the Romanovs if too many of you get angry. I think that while they're still afraid, there's still some hope.
EDIT: Reading some replies. It's weird to have to say this to such a smart crowd, but I'm not advocating riots as such; I'm advocating a substantive response. Of course riots are "bad" in some sense, but my observation is really about the odd contrast between the huge size of the "stimulus" (theft of wealth, much of it yours, on a staggering scale) and the tiny size of the "response" (newspaper articles and web forum discussions), especially when contrasted with other historical periods. So while I wouldn't "want a riot", seeing one would make me go "well, that makes sense".
On superficial reading, this story conflates tax minimization with cases of corruption.
Corruption means a politician becoming wealthy in an inappropriate way from their position of power. Even if they were to pay taxes this is still a huge negative for society. Wherhers it's the president of Azerbaijan or Nancy Pelosi, it's should rise to the level of criminal enrichment if properly investigated.
On the flip side are people who made their money legitimately and employ legal strategies available to them to minimize their tax bill. I have a hard time moralizing this because we all do it. Be it writing off donations, using tax loss harvesting, holding on to investments just long enough to not trigger capital gains taxes, etc - we all use strategies available to us to pay no more tax that we have to. I would expect nothing else from a more wealthy person. I would be totally fine if society made moves to close loopholes but I can't blame people for leveraging loopholes that exist because we should all do that.
> I would be totally fine if society made moves to close loopholes but I can't blame people for leveraging loopholes..
The first step in the right direction, then, is for people to become aware of these highly unsavory (but legal) practices. It's not going to be an easy fight. The kind of people that setup multiple shell companies to obfuscate the ownership of their assets have worked deliberately to extract wealth and game the system to a level that is unimaginable (at least for me before I heard about the related Panama Papers story that broke a couple years ago).
Ultimately, as we approach a global society with insane levels of wealth inequality and where public infrastructure and social safety nets have started to come apart at the seams, it's imperative that these "loopholes" get closed. Otherwise, we're going to be revisiting Feudalism in 21st century western democracies. Sadly some people seem to want that. They see it as a kind of gilded age lords and their servants.
While I see what you're saying, I don't think that I completely agree with you because the wealthy using these techniques (especially if they are politicians, but even if not) are undermining public confidence in the tax regime. If Nancy Pelosi or the President of Azerbaijan are conducting their own affairs in one way while advocating for something else, why should I believe their supposed commitments to a socially equitable taxation regime or desire to make the world a better place?
>On superficial reading, this story conflates tax minimization with cases of corruption.
Yes but many of the tax loopholes are just the result of the corruption of power (legal or not). It's only obvious to the people who benefit from it, so no one bats an eye.
As others on this thread have pointed out, tax laws generally outlaw sham loans, licensing arrangements, etc. When that kind of cleverness works, it usually needs a boost from corruption since the tax laws already exclude it.
These stories always do that as it fulfills a fetish.
But in any case, would your opinion change if the tax resident or provider wrote the tax law that got passed? In Mossack Fonsaco’s case that is what they did in a variety
of island nations.
> I would be totally fine if society made moves to close loopholes but I can't blame people for leveraging loopholes that exist because we should all do that.
You can still blame for bribing politicians to create these loopholes in the first place.
Two conclusions that are leaking about the "rich", like pus from an abscess:
* their abysmal greed and asocial psyche: When you already have billions, what does it matter if you pay any percentage in taxes? How does it have any material or imaterial impact on your quality of life if you contribute back to society a fraction of what it gifted you with?
* their deep fear of the societies they plunder: most people do accept some spread in wealth distribution if it is somehow "legitimate" and "kosher". Hidding their tracks and actions in complex constructions is how to engineer top-heavy, artificial, pyramids of wealth and power that exceed what would be acceptable under the cleansing light of transparency
I think it's more simple human nature. When you have billions, it's so easy to delegate work that tax avoidance becomes as simple as flipping a switch that says 'pay less taxes'. And if your highly distanced from the effects of your actions, I doubt many people would not flip the switch.
> their abysmal greed and asocial psyche: When you already have billions, what does it matter if you pay any percentage in taxes? How does it have any material or imaterial impact on your quality of life if you contribute back to society a fraction of what it gifted you with?
I don't think welfare should be based on philanthropy, but I do think some billionaires are still philanthropic, e.g. Bill Gates.
I think there is also the situation where these tax arrangements arise out of a lack of thought, rather than conscious greed and asociality.
If you pay a team of accountants and say "save me money", they're going to do everything possible to minimise your tax, some methods which should be classed as tax evasion, not avoidance.
I don't expect billionaires to have a conscience. I vote for our system to stop damage from people acting without a conscience.
In Canada, shell companies -- run by the owner's lawyers -- can hold property and there is no way to trace the property back to the original owners. The courts have found that the lawyers cannot be compelled to divulge the property ownership under lawyer-client confidentiality.
It is kind of insane that this is even allowed. How do you plan to tackle money laundering, corruption, and transparency when you cannot even figure out who owns the property in the first place?
For those wondering how this compares to Panama and Paradise Papers, those were leaks from mostly one company. This one includes 14 spread across many jurisdictions.
I guess just like the Panama papers, leading journalists will be killed, investigations stop being reported in mainstream media, and the world goes quiet again with nothing changing.
A lot of negative comments that this is yet another leak and nothing is going to change.
I see a lot of positives,
Panama and paradise leaks were from one firm, this is from 14 different ones and by far the largest one in terms of number of documents, that's progress.
More transparency is always good , as an immediate impact asset owners like the British crown are now going to be lot more careful who they are buying from, the optics of enabling laundring is quite important for such buyers.
Removing such buyers from the market for dictators will limit who they can deal with making it more difficult and likely less lucrative for them in dealing with property
You do not like that they move money offshore, and that is for a good reason, the super rich have so much resources that they can unilaterally distort the economy. The more concentrated the wealth the more fragile is the economy and the more is dependent on the mood of a few lucky people.
They usually do. Even money parked in remote islands in companies end up as investment in their home countries. Except now with another layer to hide their identity and ability to dodge taxes.
Their country might be a terrible place to invest in.
Also: define what "their country" actually means.
I think a much better take on this would be "I'd rather they invest their money in productive endeavors, that benefit society and/or humanity in general".
On other words, I agree with your general sentiment (the money should be put to good use), but find the "their country" part completely weird.
Another leak that will have people "outraged" by aggressively upvoting and commenting on articles for two weeks. The news cycle will move on, the leakers will be car bombed [0], and these papers will be memoryholed.
You can wait around for four years til a new set of old rich people get voted into power (maybe they'll be blue/red this time!!!!) and hope they get rid of the loopholes they all use. Maybe a couple more """revolutionary""" politicians will be elected who VERBALLY DISMANTLE AND DESTROY a couple billionaires in a senate hearing (OMG SO AWESOME!!!). Decide for yourself if you think anything will change.
There does exist a great equalizer, but I won't mention it. I like staying unb&.
> For a few hundred or a few thousand dollars, offshore providers can help clients…
Heh this is totally affordable for regular jack offs like me. Perhaps someone will create a public benefit corporation (benefit for the irony), democratize access to these schemes for everyone, draw the ire of government when tax revenue plummets and lead to new laws enacted.
[+] [-] lordnacho|4 years ago|reply
Some of the people who defend the ultra-rich are also the ones who claim to be in favour of free markets. A small bit of economic orthodoxy is that for free markets to work, parties need to be informed (and externalities priced in, but that's another story). This is not just in terms of "this is the price of bananas" but also in terms of knowing eg what various salaries are, which businesses are profitable, etc.
How can we have free markets when we don't even know who owns what?
As for taxation, there needs to be an overhaul. Things need to be simpler, and I say this as someone who has used international tax advisors. There's no reason the tax guy's diagram of your business should be more complicated than your own diagram. Moving profits to other countries shouldn't be possible, or rather, it should be more fixed by the nature of the business than by the desires of the CFO. We simply hear too much about "selling IP rights" to subsidiaries and similar schemes that are clearly meant to lower tax rather than increase revenue. Granted some things will be legitimate, but it's important that some vague concept of fairness is adhered to. This again goes back to transparency. We invented corporations to help improve society, so we ought to know what kinds of things people are doing with them.
Edit:
Perhaps the way to see it is, if you say "we make money by selling coffees in the UK" you would expect that entity to report a tax structure that contains a bunch of coffee and UK related entries. Reporting to investors ought to mirror reporting to the taxman.
[+] [-] xs|4 years ago|reply
1. Establish profitable company in your home country.
2. Establish 2nd company in a tax haven country.
3. Give 2nd company some kind of ownership, and then pay rental fees, licensing fees, or simply set up a high interest loan that the 2nd company loaned the first.
4. Once you set up a way to make it look like you owe the 2nd company tons of money, now your 1st company no longer is "profitable" and actually in debt losing money, which means it doesn't need to pay taxes on the massive profit it's making.
While I believe it's legal it hinges on bad ethical practice. But many large companies do this, such as cruise ships and I think Apple.
[+] [-] koolba|4 years ago|reply
It’s called “transfer pricing” and it’s been going on for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing
Short of a revenue (as opposed to income) corporate tax or VAT, it’s a very tricky problem to address. Maybe an excise tax on foreign remittances to match the highest corporate bracket.
Or you just scrap corporate tax entirely because it’s a terrible idea anyway.
[+] [-] Iv|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opportune|4 years ago|reply
This is why I support taxes such as those that France levies on digital revenue originating within their country. I also think it makes sense to wholly eliminate corporation taxes (which are not only avoidable, but are a form of double taxation) and replace them with these revenue taxes.
[+] [-] fragmede|4 years ago|reply
Apple's easy to pick on, they're one of the richest companies in the world and should pay more taxes. But for companies that are less successful, it's entirely possible that the second company is actually losing money. Without an appropriately sized army to track through the 200th company (tracking transactions between two companies is simplified to make the tax evasion easy to understand. Real world tax evasion is dramatically more complicated.)
[+] [-] dataflow|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raxxorrax|4 years ago|reply
Not true for Apple of course... but an appeal to ethics won't work either, the laws need to be adapted. Business ethics itself is a funny term anyway.
[+] [-] csomar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] londons_explore|4 years ago|reply
Company 1's directors have to do what is in the best interests of the company. If they choose to sign up to a high interest loan which will take all their profits, that isn't decision-making in the best interests of company 1. That's the point they can be put in prison.
I just don't quite understand how nobody is prosecuting them...
[+] [-] chrismcb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|4 years ago|reply
When you get barely rich, like single digit millions, the banks will start to offer you "family office" services. They basically just take care of everything for you. You send them all your money and all your debts (even your phone bills and stuff), and they promise to make sure there is more at the end of the year than the start. They invest for you, they do accounting and file taxes for you. You give them limited power of attorney so you don't even see the tax forms.
If you ask how it all works, they tell you it's really complicated and you should just focus on doing whatever it is that made you rich and let them worry about managing the money for you. Sometimes they do ethical stuff, sometimes not, depending on which bank and which consultant you hire.
I'm not excusing the people who are here, just explaining how some people who you thought were good people end up in these leaks.
[+] [-] rich_sasha|4 years ago|reply
Everyone knew before and after the rich don’t pay taxes. We don’t need more evidence, we need action.
[+] [-] jl6|4 years ago|reply
Immoral? Debatable. But the lack of action is because of the lack of a crime.
The action should be to propose new legislation that changes what taxes are collected, where, and when.
The main crimes exposed in these are money laundering rather than tax evasion.
[+] [-] lelandfe|4 years ago|reply
Frankly, I don't know of much else like that leak in history in terms of its global impact.
[+] [-] rcMgD2BwE72F|4 years ago|reply
Are these exclusive?
[+] [-] bojangleslover|4 years ago|reply
The top 10% of taxpayers pay 70% of the tax. Focusing on Tony Blair's 300k Stamp Duty avoidance is a penny-rich, pound-poor move.
[+] [-] maybelsyrup|4 years ago|reply
In history books, you get a sense sometimes that there were eras in which stuff like this sent people into the streets in rages. In which governments were voted out or overthrown, in which meaningful legislative responses were made. Or, you know, riots.
But I look around after reading those books and wonder what makes us so different. It's weird to live in this era. I read a Guardian article like this and look at the staggering sums, this entire "shadow financial system" devoted solely to one notion: I'm going to take as much as I can, in whatever way that I can, regardless of legality, and I'm going to give nothing back because I sincerely don't believe I owe anything back -- oh, and I'm going to keep it all a secret.
And I look around and not only don't see any riots; I sometimes get the feeling that people are actually envious, sometimes even respectful of the ingenuity it takes to manufacture these schemes. It's tough.
The only silver lining I can think of is what all the secrecy says: we're not just doing this in the open because we're still afraid we'll end up like the Romanovs if too many of you get angry. I think that while they're still afraid, there's still some hope.
EDIT: Reading some replies. It's weird to have to say this to such a smart crowd, but I'm not advocating riots as such; I'm advocating a substantive response. Of course riots are "bad" in some sense, but my observation is really about the odd contrast between the huge size of the "stimulus" (theft of wealth, much of it yours, on a staggering scale) and the tiny size of the "response" (newspaper articles and web forum discussions), especially when contrasted with other historical periods. So while I wouldn't "want a riot", seeing one would make me go "well, that makes sense".
[+] [-] xyzelement|4 years ago|reply
Corruption means a politician becoming wealthy in an inappropriate way from their position of power. Even if they were to pay taxes this is still a huge negative for society. Wherhers it's the president of Azerbaijan or Nancy Pelosi, it's should rise to the level of criminal enrichment if properly investigated.
On the flip side are people who made their money legitimately and employ legal strategies available to them to minimize their tax bill. I have a hard time moralizing this because we all do it. Be it writing off donations, using tax loss harvesting, holding on to investments just long enough to not trigger capital gains taxes, etc - we all use strategies available to us to pay no more tax that we have to. I would expect nothing else from a more wealthy person. I would be totally fine if society made moves to close loopholes but I can't blame people for leveraging loopholes that exist because we should all do that.
[+] [-] crispyambulance|4 years ago|reply
The first step in the right direction, then, is for people to become aware of these highly unsavory (but legal) practices. It's not going to be an easy fight. The kind of people that setup multiple shell companies to obfuscate the ownership of their assets have worked deliberately to extract wealth and game the system to a level that is unimaginable (at least for me before I heard about the related Panama Papers story that broke a couple years ago).
Ultimately, as we approach a global society with insane levels of wealth inequality and where public infrastructure and social safety nets have started to come apart at the seams, it's imperative that these "loopholes" get closed. Otherwise, we're going to be revisiting Feudalism in 21st century western democracies. Sadly some people seem to want that. They see it as a kind of gilded age lords and their servants.
[+] [-] whakim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rcMgD2BwE72F|4 years ago|reply
Yes but many of the tax loopholes are just the result of the corruption of power (legal or not). It's only obvious to the people who benefit from it, so no one bats an eye.
[+] [-] Zigurd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] archsurface|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
But in any case, would your opinion change if the tax resident or provider wrote the tax law that got passed? In Mossack Fonsaco’s case that is what they did in a variety of island nations.
[+] [-] esarbe|4 years ago|reply
You can still blame for bribing politicians to create these loopholes in the first place.
[+] [-] streamofdigits|4 years ago|reply
* their abysmal greed and asocial psyche: When you already have billions, what does it matter if you pay any percentage in taxes? How does it have any material or imaterial impact on your quality of life if you contribute back to society a fraction of what it gifted you with?
* their deep fear of the societies they plunder: most people do accept some spread in wealth distribution if it is somehow "legitimate" and "kosher". Hidding their tracks and actions in complex constructions is how to engineer top-heavy, artificial, pyramids of wealth and power that exceed what would be acceptable under the cleansing light of transparency
[+] [-] jeffe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heurisko|4 years ago|reply
I don't think welfare should be based on philanthropy, but I do think some billionaires are still philanthropic, e.g. Bill Gates.
I think there is also the situation where these tax arrangements arise out of a lack of thought, rather than conscious greed and asociality.
If you pay a team of accountants and say "save me money", they're going to do everything possible to minimise your tax, some methods which should be classed as tax evasion, not avoidance.
I don't expect billionaires to have a conscience. I vote for our system to stop damage from people acting without a conscience.
[+] [-] __turbobrew__|4 years ago|reply
It is kind of insane that this is even allowed. How do you plan to tackle money laundering, corruption, and transparency when you cannot even figure out who owns the property in the first place?
[+] [-] input_sh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beermonster|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeoPanthera|4 years ago|reply
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58780465
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/pandora-papers-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/03/takeaways...
[+] [-] missedthecue|4 years ago|reply
https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/power-pla...
[+] [-] 1024core|4 years ago|reply
ICIJ: stop being the gatekeepers.
[+] [-] au8er|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manquer|4 years ago|reply
I see a lot of positives,
Panama and paradise leaks were from one firm, this is from 14 different ones and by far the largest one in terms of number of documents, that's progress.
More transparency is always good , as an immediate impact asset owners like the British crown are now going to be lot more careful who they are buying from, the optics of enabling laundring is quite important for such buyers.
Removing such buyers from the market for dictators will limit who they can deal with making it more difficult and likely less lucrative for them in dealing with property
[+] [-] TheChaplain|4 years ago|reply
If I had such level of riches I'd invest in stocks, companies, research, properties etc.. I'm certain it would open more job opportunities.
[+] [-] Hokusai|4 years ago|reply
You do not like that they move money offshore, and that is for a good reason, the super rich have so much resources that they can unilaterally distort the economy. The more concentrated the wealth the more fragile is the economy and the more is dependent on the mood of a few lucky people.
[+] [-] 8ytecoder|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ur-whale|4 years ago|reply
Why?
Their country might be a terrible place to invest in.
Also: define what "their country" actually means.
I think a much better take on this would be "I'd rather they invest their money in productive endeavors, that benefit society and/or humanity in general".
On other words, I agree with your general sentiment (the money should be put to good use), but find the "their country" part completely weird.
[+] [-] gremIin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mygoodaccount|4 years ago|reply
You can wait around for four years til a new set of old rich people get voted into power (maybe they'll be blue/red this time!!!!) and hope they get rid of the loopholes they all use. Maybe a couple more """revolutionary""" politicians will be elected who VERBALLY DISMANTLE AND DESTROY a couple billionaires in a senate hearing (OMG SO AWESOME!!!). Decide for yourself if you think anything will change.
There does exist a great equalizer, but I won't mention it. I like staying unb&.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb...
[+] [-] adflux|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Qw3r7|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] I_am_tiberius|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fmakunbound|4 years ago|reply
Heh this is totally affordable for regular jack offs like me. Perhaps someone will create a public benefit corporation (benefit for the irony), democratize access to these schemes for everyone, draw the ire of government when tax revenue plummets and lead to new laws enacted.
[+] [-] eyeball|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wolverine876|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Iv|4 years ago|reply