Red Pill ExampleEmma Watson: Star SJW Linked to Panama Papers Leak (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 1Su-Wu_Red

TL/DR: Emma Watson spends time campaigning for social justice, and is one of the most prominent faces of the new generation of feminists. Right now she is employed by the UN as the "Women Goodwill Ambassador". Because of the panama papers we have learnt that she is employing the same financial tricks used by the neoliberal elite that is not paying their fair share of taxes and bleeding societies dry. This reinforces the red pill principle of how SJWs don't actually care about the social welfare of the masses, their true interest is in maximizing their power/influence, and they will hide behind causes while doing this.

I literally cackled with glee when the notification flashed across my phone: Emma Watson had been named in the Panama Papers leak. For those who haven't been following, the Panama Papers are a massive data leak that showed how some of the richest people/corporations in the world hide their money in off-shore companies based in Panama, often using these entities to reduce their tax burden or launder money.

This leak is so big it's going to take a year+ for us to figure out who is all in it. So far, major figures have been implicated e.g. David Cameron's father, Putin, the King of Saudi Arabia etc. Today we learnt that Emma Watson owns her London apartment through an off-shore company created by the same Panamian law firm that helped many of the global elite to launder money/avoid taxes.

Now, offshore companies are not illegal per se. However, this is because the world's powerful write the rules to not make them illegal. If the masses truly understood the big picture and had control the legislative process, these entities would be regulated way tighter than they are now, possibly banned. You do not get one of these entities unless you are trying to hide some sort of information about your money.

One of the big issues in our world today is wealth inequality. Worse than gender inequality I would say, because, if SJWs want more gender equality, then fixing wealth inequality will go along way to help. Money is literally being vacuumed to the top, and social programs are not being sponsored. For decades, people have been cheating societies by being able to use community owned resources, while not paying the appropriate fee that maintains those resources. Of course, the working schmucks (upper middle class and below) are left with the bill.

It is amazing that somebody who runs around preaching to us about social justice, and how we have to be better etc., employs the same oppressive techniques used by the supposed patriarchy that she is supposedly pushing back against.

This is her explanation. Tell me if it passes the sniff test:

UK companies are required to publicly publish details of their shareholders and therefore do not give her the necessary anonymity required to protect her personal safety, which has been jeopardised in the past owing to such information being publicly available

Oh, so your only way of protecting your anonymity just so happens to be buying a company from Panamanians that are world renowned for their money laundering and tax evasion expertise. Totally makes sense.

Lessons learned: It's always about power.

News Story: http://archive.is/22505

Edit: Wowzers! I clearly struck a nerve here! I am happy that we could get some discussion going. I appreciate that 150K of people are not going to perfectly align on political views. A diversity of viewpoints is a good thing. Putting the ideological differences aside, the key takeaway here is that Emma Watson is a hypocrite who advocates for big government for her social justice agenda, while at the same time hiding her money from said big government. Rarely do SJWs get caught out in such a way.

Edit 2 The feminist defenses have started to come out. General argument: "She did good for women, so the author doesn't care about her potential tax issues." I wonder if this defense would work for a man in the same situation.

[–]dresdonbogart 617 points618 points  (10 children)

I saw this tweet, and couldn't help but laugh out loud.

"Emma Watson only launders 79 cents for every dollar laundered by a man."

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 116 points117 points  (5 children)

"Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout money laundering."

[–]dresdonbogart 40 points41 points  (0 children)

The names revealed are overwhelmingly male... even money laundering is a patriarchy. When will we ever reach true equality??

[–]inu64kza 27 points28 points  (3 children)


Holy fuck for a sub that normally bums me out and is very serious/stoic in tone you guys are absolutely killing me today.

Fucking humour gains all around since I last visited.

[–]inu64kza 41 points42 points  (0 children)

"Emma Watson only launders 79 cents for every dollar laundered by a man."

This made my day.

[–]trpdgc 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Now we know where the other 21 cents went

[–]B_uckets 226 points227 points  (22 children)

Emma Watson is also the one who claimed to eschew gender norms while dating Chad the alpha rugby player.

Me: Hey Emma, what's your favorite type of cake?
Emma: Vanilla!
Me: Then why is your refrigerator filled with chocolate cake?
Emma: Oh... uh... I mean other people should like vanilla cake because then the world would be a better place. But I can't help it if I prefer chocolate!

[–]inu64kza 196 points197 points  (11 children)

dating Chad the alpha rugby player.

Not quite.

Chad the incredibly handsome, wealthy, posh, Oxbridge alpha rugby player.

Even money isn't enough. Has to be generations of old money and the lifestyle, networks, influence etc. that buys.

Even Oxbridge isn't enough social status/intelligence. She only dates public school (UK for a handful of extremely exclusive private schools that are 800 years old like Eton) boys who've had family money for generations if you look at her dating history.

She's the worst kind of champagne socialist.

[–][deleted] 58 points59 points  (2 children)

She's the worst kind of champagne socialist.

The kind that every Guardian staff writer dreams to be.

[–]getbangedchatshit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Guardian sports writers are pretty good though. That's all I read on that site.

[–]spectrum_92 1 point2 points  (0 children)

God damn you hit the nail on the head there

[–]night-addict 58 points59 points  (4 children)

champagne socialist is now how I shall describe these people. It's shockingly accurate.

[–]Johnny_Lawless_Esq 21 points21 points [recovered]

Limousine Liberal in American parlance. :D

[–]trpdgc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not really an oxymoron. The rich socialist is the one that seeks to be friends with the dictatorship.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

yeah but secretly she just wants that average type of 'good guy' who isn't afraid to show his insecurities and vulnerabilities, you know, the kind of masculinity that is RIGHT

[–]ImProbablyAngry 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Champagne Socialist is a beautiful term

[–]St_OP_to_u_chin_me 11 points11 points [recovered]

Personal preferences aside, Chad Thundercock is chocolate right?

[–]2CHAD_J_THUNDERCOCK 57 points58 points  (4 children)

Well your mom calls me white chocolate but your wife calls me honey

[–]St_OP_to_u_chin_me 30 points30 points [recovered]

Sick burn Chad now go back to your hole.

[–]2CHAD_J_THUNDERCOCK 43 points44 points  (1 child)

Actually I just left your sisters house

[–]B_uckets 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Haha in this example, yes.

I figured 'vanilla' would be a good substitute for 'boring' since that's what it usually means in relation to sex.

[–]PedroIsWatching 112 points113 points  (13 children)

I've disliked Watson ever since she gave that condescending UN speech where she said men should give up gender stereotypes and that we don't have to be stonewall macho alpha males to get women, before immediately going home to her stonewall macho rugby captain boyfriend.

Watch what they do, not what they say.

[–]inu64kza 33 points34 points  (8 children)

i almost see it as doing men a favour.

a handful of girls get swayed by her and fuck you while you're getting fit.

the majority of girls can't deny their instincts and when you finally turn into a macho hunk after a few years in the gym their basic biological programming can't resist you.

only now you have less competition because she convinced millions of lazy boys not to try to become men.

[–]BlackMwoyo 7 points8 points  (4 children)

I used to be fit but had an fractured elbow injury and I stopped working out. All my other friends became fit as fuck and 2 weeks ago they asked me the one question. What am I waiting for. This will be day 4 at the gym for me and I plan to continue.

[–]inu64kza 11 points12 points  (1 child)

All my other friends became fit as fuck and 2 weeks ago they asked me the one question. What am I waiting for.

sound like good friends to keep around you.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I took an arrow to the knee

[–]BlackMwoyo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

except instead of just saying that if I was a guard I'd be saying I'm starting to adventure again so.....

[–]marty2k 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Feminism in general widens the gap between alpha and beta, no wasting genetics in the middle ground anymore. Things like denying gender roles, affirmative consent, divorce rape, cat calling, slut walking, etc are things that only apply to betas and only things they fall for. It's a good time to be an alpha male.

Back in the day the alpha to beta line was more of a scale 1-10. Now it's just binary, 0 or 1.

[–]inu64kza 0 points1 point  (1 child)

that's a good way to reframe it in you head.

i mean if we're just cynical for a second here this is nothing more than a power grab. the biggest alpha int he world can be brought to his knees via feminism (rape accusation, insensitive comment etc)

but in terms of everyone here's day to day life it's much more useful to frame it the way you are framing it.

[–]marty2k 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean it can hurt alpha men, but it will rarely turn an alpha men beta. But it will make half alphas betas and betas more beta.

[–]G_Petronius 155 points155 points [recovered]

Of course she's playing the woman card, why wouldn't she? just by bringing up security, as if a multi-millionaire star with more private guards than several heads of state had anything to fear, she can immediately shut up all the people whose careers are predicated on reinforcing women-as-perpetual-victims mentality.

[–]1Su-Wu_Red[S] 100 points101 points  (18 children)

Haha yes I noticed that too. "I tax evade because safety duh."

[–]1FunAndFreedom 83 points84 points  (2 children)

It's up there with her "Refugees are not criminals and we need to let more into our country! Will I visit a refugee camp without a body guard? Um, next question."

[–]1mojo_juju 12 points13 points  (1 child)

tried to find this on youtube, was not successful. any chance you know the name of the video or could find it for us?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think she actually addressed this question in an interview.... But there was a good size petition for it, which was ignored.

[–]5 Endorsed ContributorStayinghereforreal 22 points23 points  (13 children)

To keep her name off public records regarding property ownership, she can hold the real estate via entity, formed in any number of jurisdictions, or by a trust having no obvious association with her, although she is the taxpayer on the private return filed with officials. But if those entities are subject to British taxation oversight, taxes will be paid on the certain-to-be-had gains on the London real property when sold.

So yes, the privacy dodge she makes strikes me as a superficial claim, that gulls only the unknowing. The real likely purpose of holding London real property via offshore account is to make it possible to transfer title without paying taxes. She might not actually evade the tax upon sale, but she can do so more easily this way.

[–]inu64kza 1 point2 points  (10 children)

she can hold the real estate via entity, formed in any number of jurisdictions

what does this mean? could you explain?

[–]offensive_tv 5 points6 points  (6 children)

She personally doesn't own the house she is living in. She does own the corporation, or is the benifactor of the trust that owns the corporation that owns the trust that owns the corporation that rents the house from a corporation that owns the house... Each corporation is usually created in a different jurisdiction.

[–]inu64kza 2 points3 points  (5 children)

got it.

and is the purpose of creating all these shelf companies in different jurisdictions basically to make it very expensive for anyone who wants to track her to try?

or do a lot of these jurisdictions have very tight disclosure rules meaning even if you trace her to say the 3rd layer in the cayman islands, they cayman authorities will just tell you to fuck off because they don't disclose that info?


i'm assuming panama is usually like this which is why this leak is such a big deal? everyone thought that they were safe registering in panama?


if so, what's the benefit of doing all this? specifically how does this save you on tax/stamp duty? or is it just a privacy thing? if so, why do you ned privacy? do you just not want people to know what properties you own?

[–]offensive_tv 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Part is privacy, part is protecting assets and the other part is hiding money from high taxes.

Actors don't get paid directly like regular people do. It is their corporation that gets paid. The actor takes a piece to live off of while the remaining gets filtered through he corporations into a tax haven country like Panama. Not only are they protected from the taxes on the initial amount that gets made but the future earnings of all investments from the protected money.

I am going to steal one guys example on here to explain it. These options are available to everyone to use. Most people it is not worth it. Let's say it costs $35k to open up a string of corporations like this. You wouldn't do it if you only had $45k or even $100k to protect. The cost would be more than the tax savings you would get. To people like Emma Watson who do it to save milions in taxes, the cost of $35k is definitely worth it. The potential amount of money you can still make from the millions you just saved invested makes you even more money. Whenever you need money like you need $100k and you have $50 million in the bank you will only get taxed on the $100k you pulled out instead of the $50 million in the bank because it is not money you have recognized as income even though it is still your money. It is technically the corporations money.

This is just one way to protect your money. You could do what the clintons do and when you get paid, it is your charity that gets paid which not only becomes tax free money for you but a tax donation to the people who pay you. You pay yourself a moderate salary to run the charity and you spend 90% of the money from the charity on "administration" duties while the other 10% actually does charity work. Not only the clintons do this. Anita Sarkesian does this, bill gates does this, warren buffet does this. So when you heard Warrent Buffett donated billions to charity, he actually donated billions to Gates charity where he knows he still has control over it but it is protected from taxes because it is in a non profit organization.

[–]inu64kza 1 point2 points  (3 children)

thanks, you explain this stuff really well.

so say she's in the uk she only pulls out small sums like 100k at a time as income when she needs it only paying uk tax on that sum and avoids tax on the rest of the $10m paycheque. plus the remainder $9.9m is being invested and earning income that's also out of the reach of the uk government.

though surely the company has to pay company tax on those investment earnings wherever they've decided to invest? let's say japan for example?

i'm a bit confused about the initial payment from movie studio ==> emma's panama shell company.

doesn't emma's panama shell company have to pay tax on that? presumably in usa if it's an american studio that's paying that $10m cheque?

i know company tax is lower than private income tax but isn't she paying double tax? first time paying 20% company tax and then whatever local income tax wherever she takes out the 100k to spend?

also how does she deal with asset acquisition? say she uses 5 out of that 10m to buy a house in london.

is it the shell company that pays and gives her the right to use as a beneficiary of the trust or does she take the money out, pay tax on the 5m and then pay for the house?

isn't there another layer of tax when you buy uk property? stamp duty? how does all this network of companies help you avoid that?

[–]offensive_tv 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Like I said it depends how everything is set up. These corporations could have expenses that write off the profit and the expenses could either be fake or real expenses but written off. I am not familiar with panama tax laws but I am guessing the tax rate is a lot cheaper than it is for uk. So she could be paying panama corporate taxes at say 5% but not paying us 25% taxes. (Estimating here) if you had 100 million which would you rather pay 5% or 25% tax rate? I haven't looked at it all. I just know the broad scope of things from my tax classes. Tax codes are a big mess especially when you go international. This is why good tax firms make millions of dollars. They save their clients multi millions of dollars.

I honestly can't answer the basics you are asking because that requires knowledge of all the tax code. The point is they are not paying no taxes, the point is they are using loop holes in the system to pay the minimum amount of taxes possible. You can never get out of paying taxes, unless your business is completely cash and can't be tracked, you can get out of paying a good majority of it.

Like here in the states. They have what's called an estate tax. You will have to pay 50% of everything over 5 million in taxes from your estate to pass it on to your kids. Unless if you plan properly and set up trusts and the like then you can pass everything to your kids tax free when you died.

Recently prince died and he didn't do any of that. So the government gets 50% of everything he owns above 5 million. When Ted Kennedy died he was able to give all 80 million dollars of his worth to his kids tax free because he set it up correctly.

[–]inu64kza 1 point2 points  (0 children)

cheers, thanks. interesting stuff.

[–]AllMenPlayOn10 0 points1 point  (2 children)

the real estate is owned by an entity that does not reside in that country, and thus not subject to taxation.

They not only have one offshore entity, but a complex network of them which makes it difficult to track who actually controls the assets owned by these shell corporations. These are spread out across many smaller countries who derive a large amount of income by allowing this to happen (Panama, Isle of Man, Luxembourg, Virgin Islands, etc).

[–]inu64kza 0 points1 point  (1 child)

cool. thanks.

i get the network of shell companies concept.

how does the tax avoidance work?

does she just get her movie and endorsement paycheques sent to luxembourg holding company number xxx and then spend that money as she wishes without the uk/usa taxman ever even finding out about it?

re the property in question. is this connected to stamp duty? or is she earning rental income that's being paid to a foreign shell company and, similarly, evading taxation?

[–]AllMenPlayOn10 0 points1 point  (0 children)

get her movie and endorsement paycheques sent to luxembourg holding company number xxx and then spend that money as she wishes without the uk/usa taxman ever even finding out about it? re the property in question. is this connected to stamp duty? or is she earning rental income that's being paid to a foreign shell company and, similarly, evading taxation?

She doesn't get paid when she does a movie, a company she controls does, she in turn gets paid a salary out of that which does get taxed, while the rest stays away from the taxman

[–]wanderer779 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i didn't look into this, but are you sure it was RE? I was thinking stock ownership. For example in the U.S. if you hold above 5% of a stock you have to file that with the SEC. Maybe there is something similar in the UK?

Even so, I don't know if there is much that is disclosed in either case. Maybe you'd have to provide an address or something, but that's probably available anyway. It's not like you have to have to disclose that much in these things.

It would be nice to get her to expound on this privacy explanation a little more, but I doubt that happens (because it's probably BS).

[–]stemgang 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Which is a bullshit excuse to begin with.

We all know she is rich. So there is no secret to be exposed.

[–]Subtletorious 188 points189 points  (5 children)

UK companies are required to publicly publish details of their shareholders

She is lying her pretty little arse off. While a contact address is required for all companies registered in the UK, there are professional service organisations (solicitors, asset managers etc) that can act as intermediary. This is the exact same service her Panama representatives would have provided for her off-shore companies.


necessary anonymity required to protect her personal safety

It is amazing how fast The Empowered switch to The Damsal in Distress.

[–]Swimmingdunce 22 points23 points  (2 children)

You've got it back to front. There's no easy way to find out if a particular person owns a property in the Uk without a massive amount of detective work. But it is relatively easy to find out who owns a specific property. You just look at the title deeds at the land registry. If it is a uk company you can then go to companies house and find out who owns the company. If it is a Panama co, then the trail ends there.

However, Watson's claims that it was for security reasons are not entirely credible. What is more likely is that it was set up to avoid Stamp Duty when first bought ( rules have changed recently so that doesn't work any more). it also means that the transaction took place off shore so the money never came into the UK. This could also have avoided Income Tax on her earnings if she has the right set up for her personal financials.

[–]inu64kza 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What is more likely is that it was set up to avoid Stamp Duty when first bought ( rules have changed recently so that doesn't work any more

what were the old rules and what are the new rules?

So if I got this straight:

(1) She set up a Panama shelf company which creates a UK shelf company subsidiary (or does it buy a new uk shelf company?) which bought a UK property

(2) Paper Trail for anyone stalking her as she claims is:

(2.1) Look up title deed for the UK property which gives you UK shelf company name.

(2.2) Look up UK shelf company name on Companies House which gives you Panama shelf company name.

(3) Panama has tighter disclosure rules. So you cannot find out who owns the Panama company.

BUT you're claiming that while this is plausible and correct info from Watson she's probably bullshitting because:

(4) Under old rules if a uk subsidiary had a foreign parent company they did not have to pay stamp duty? I'm confused about this bit.

(5) Also, her cheques get sent to her Panama company so she doesn't have to declare any of her income from movies, endorsements etc. to HMRC

(6) Is she generating rent from her UK property? Is she avoiding tax on that income too because it's being paid to her Panama company?

[–]Subtletorious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that the name of the shareholder can't be kept secret. However, the address of said shareholder can be kept secret (from the public at least).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yeah it's pretty ridiculous that she wouldn't just get intermediaries. The only justification for doing this overseas is to save money, usually through tax evasion purposes.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 44 points45 points  (0 children)

"Gender equality not only liberates women but also men from government-prescribed wealth tax burdens."

Of course, Emma is no stranger to hypocrisy.

[–]Ransal 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Anita Sarkeesian has been caught red handed with the cookies in her mouth so many times but feminists are so retarded they actually believe she's still legit.

It's time to officially classify feminism as a cult, a dangerous one at that.

[–]DrScientist812 59 points60 points  (3 children)

I can't wait to see how she twists this into a feminist cause: "Oh well I HAD to put my money away because all because patriarchy. Women need to fight for their right to privacy!"

[–]1Su-Wu_Red[S] 22 points23 points  (2 children)

Clearly, she's trying to fix the gender wage gap.

[–]RealRational 7 points8 points  (1 child)

The one that's been proven not to exist like, a billion times? That one?

[–][deleted] 112 points113 points  (17 children)

The hypocrisy gives me a hard on. Oh wait, that's just Emma.

[–]apricot-jam 39 points40 points  (4 children)

It's going to be interesting to see how she brings feminism into this

[–]TRPTosser 69 points70 points  (2 children)

The patriarchy is after her hard-earned money.

[–]1Entropy-7 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You want to give Herhymenie your wand, Harry?

[–]vagbutters 13 points14 points  (8 children)

I feel like I'm in the minority when I say that I just don't find her attractive whatsoever. She's a HB5 by my standards, tops-- something about her face just turns me off

[–]oklahomaeagle 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Meh... She's attractive. Not the hottest woman in the world. Certainly not ugly. Definitely a hypocritic.

[–]vagbutters 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To me she's attractive in the same way that a girl with that sort of body is attractive. Her face leaves a lot to be desired.

[–]Redsqa 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I feel ya. Personally, it's the same with Scarlett Johansson. Something about her face turns me off big time, and everytime it comes up in a discussion people won't believe me when I say I genuinely don't find her attractive (face wise).

[–]ChadThundercockII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Scarlett has that sexy voice going on.

[–]vagbutters 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Scarlett is another one (though I'd say she looks better than Watson)-- it's her face like you said... It almost looks boyish to me.

[–]juliusstreicher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that I have quantified what it is about her look: she looks Trailer Park.

I saw some weird movie with her in it, and she was naked. Very bland. 7 on a good day. It looked like her medium/small tits were sagging already.

So, Trailer Park face, alright body, famous equals HB10+ to a lot of guys.

[–]juliusstreicher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep. Just a bland girl. Not bad, not hot.

FYI, "not bad"="fuckable".

[–]vicious_armbar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I thought she was hot until she got that goofy tattoo on her arm. Why do so many young women feel the need to deface their bodies with permanent graffiti? I can count the number of times a tattoo has improved a woman's beauty on my right hand, and still have fingers left over.

[–]rossiFan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's very confusing for me, too.

[–][deleted] 59 points59 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]1Su-Wu_Red[S] 51 points52 points  (8 children)

If I'm being honest, that is a tough question. It shouldn't be legal, let's put it that way. The wealthy shouldn't be able to write such laws for themselves. If we are going to pretend that this democracy thing is for real.

I don't think I would have been as mad if Emma Watson kept her views to herself. What makes this scenario particularly galling is the fact that she goes around spouting this narrative about how men are bad people, equality this, equality that, yet here she is, actively furthering inequality.

[–]etherael 27 points28 points  (4 children)

The wealthy shouldn't be able to write such laws for themselves. If we are going to pretend that this democracy thing is for real.

The very fact that they can is just another point on the practically infinite series of evidence that's really all anyone is doing with this democracy thing; pretending it's real.

Don't let it get you down. Democracy is actually a terrible idea. The very fact it is so easily manipulated and thoroughly sidelined is due to the idiocy of the very plebs those who would claim democracy as a virtue insist ought to play a part in the political process. They disqualify themselves and have for a long time by their ignorance and how easily manipulated they are by shallow emotional appeal and simplistic psychological manipulation coupled with a desperate weakness for the just world fallacy.

The world as it really is, is nothing like the image propaganda feeds us of it. Political power is now and always has been little more than a cancerous channel for the ambitions of the psychopathic, and nothing has ever diluted it into any less other than the simple destruction of political power itself. One of the few things which those that seek and wield said power actually fear, although the abject unthinking terror the proles react with at the thought of a world without political authority indicates such fear is likely not something they will ever be faced with in reality.

Case in point; The revelations in the Panama papers will be used as a fulcrum to lever even more power to the political authorities of the world, and the few who comment on the irony of the watchers being caught with their hand in the cookie jar having their power increased because of it will be sneered at, politely ignored or uncomfortably disregarded at the very most. The idea that this concrete and widespread evidence that the gamekeepers have fixed the game completely elicits practically zero calls for the heads of the gamekeepers is just hilarious and sad all at once. It's a beautiful racket, and I'm truly quite impressed that even with this level of evidence that the entire stinking cabal is nothing but corrupt, the sheep just beg to be saved and demand that very same cabal is handed even more power.

Humans are fools, and political power is their present opiate, either as masters or slaves.

[–]vagbutters 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They disqualify themselves and have for a long time by their ignorance and how easily manipulated they are by shallow emotional appeal and simplistic psychological manipulation coupled with a desperate weakness for the just world fallacy.

This is incredibly important to understand. Democracy only "works" by manipulating retards into thinking that the rich and powerful are somehow not pulling the strings. This is why I tell everyone here the same thing-- protect your own interests, fuck nationalism or whatever other bullshit people sell to make you fight wars for the rich/powerful.

[–]mikehod 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Your post both impressed and depressed me at the same time.

You have a way with words that I wish I had, but that would require among other things a knowledge of the world that I don't think I want to possess. I think I would rather stay ignorant, and yes I know fully well what sub I am posting on; the irony is not lost on me.

[–]grimby4444 4 points5 points  (1 child)

You just have to read more, dude.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah, this is really the crux of the matter. When someone is a moral crusader and it's found they're a bloody hypocrite, it's hard not to be a tad disgusted.

[–]juliusstreicher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, she's all for equality, if somebody else pays for it.

[–]rockhardstranger 18 points19 points  (6 children)

It's the hypocrisy that pisses me off.

I'm a libertarian. I think taxes are too high and government is too big. Sure I'd shelter as much income as I legally could.

But I wouldn't be out in public supporting big government and progressive ideals at the same time like a filthy two-faced snake.

[–]GuitarHero07 8 points9 points  (3 children)

like a filthy two-faced snake

That's what most of these politicians and SJW celebrities are. They might tout these big government and wealth redistribution programs to the masses but they continue to ruthlessly pursue their own interests.

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Law 38: "Think as you like, but behave like others"

[–]1aguy01 2 points3 points  (1 child)

For politics it's more do as you like, say what they want to hear. Remember when Obama said he would go through the budget line by line and slash our debt, then he got elected and he tripled it. Anyone who believes anything any politician has ever said in front of a podium is a fool.

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hear you. So the "behave aspect" is more in the superficial sense. You outwardly convey behaviours in line with what the people want, but behind the scenes you plan counter to that.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

it's not hypocrisy

it's machiavellianism

these people were not in this game for the sake of truth or authenticity but for power and money

if you still can't accept that you didn't interiorize many things from here, especially stoicism

[–]25russianbear25 3 points4 points  (1 child)

If you had the money and connects, would you do it?

The funny part is that shes is playing as a saint/mother theresa, the SJW who bring justice to the less fortunate while fucking everyone over.

Most people would do it but it takes another level of fucked up to pretend youre holy and a savior while fucking society more than an average person could ever.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

it's not really about being 'greedy', it's more of stopping others greed from taking your money

The tax laws are retarded (at all levels) for taxing you on making money that you already paid tax on (in most places, some still used their brain when making tax code and are flourishing).

no matter which way you look at it, taxing money made on investments made with already taxed income is retarded and counter intuitive, yet when a govt sees a way to grab easy money they say 'why not' without considering the consequences.

and now we have this moronic logic "not paying their fair share" that even OP used, which just makes the whole thing more unbelievable.

[–]3savoryprunes 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Only the profits generated by investments are taxed. The principle of the investment may or may not have been taxed before it was invested, depending upon whether it was a 401K contribution or other non-taxable category. Money stashed offshore is not taxed at all.

It's fine to take issue with the tax code, just be clear about what it is first.

[–]arealbigboss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, for this exact reason. People could find out and when they do you lose your reputation and credibility. In the long run it's more profitable to roll with the punches and let those who made the wrong choice fall.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Somewhat related, I remember a post a month ago about a book that was similar to The Prince but was more modern. Anyone know what it is?

[–]Transmigratory 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I knew the feminists weren't going to attack her like they'd attack men found in this scandal.

[–]ForensicFungineer 6 points7 points  (1 child)

The regressive left / limousine liberals are the embodiment of the phrase "do as I say and not as I do".

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

limousine liberals

The girls who come from wealth and whose mommy and daddy pay for them to attend a 45k/year tuition private college to study "gender studies" and still have the nerve to call a working class white man more "privileged" than her because maybe she's half indian or something.

So what's your post graduation plan dear?

"Ummm... I think I'll go like... Traveling in SE Asia or something."

[–]Moneyley 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You know what Putin said? "yea, that shit is accurate"

[–]vagbutters 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm glad that someone posted this because I was too busy to do so. Every fucking SJW/beta male on this site was whiteknighting her ass to the ground.

[–]bowie747 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Upper middle class and below are left with the bill.

Well, upper middle class to lower middle class anyway. The poor barely pay any tax.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

People with power remain in power, the poor remain reliable dependent voters. Bleed everyone else dry, 'merica!

[–]UndergroundRP 8 points9 points  (24 children)

the ... elite that is not paying their fair share of taxes and bleeding societies dry.

That's not really how they bleed societies dry. But it is how some people hide secret payoffs, and THAT is a lot closer to how they do it. Not paying taxes is a drop in the bucket, but it does speak to how they think the rules are for everyone else, but not them.

[–]1FunAndFreedom 35 points36 points  (23 children)

Let's say you want to start a small business. You do well, have great management and supply chain structure and thus make a nice profit, you end up paying an effective tax rate between 35-45%.

Big corporation moves into your market, because they have millions of dollars invested in tax avoidance vehicles and lobbying they pay under 5% in taxes. They use this advantage to undercut your prices, puts you out of business.

The money they earn flows out of your country into a tax haven. How is this not bleeding societies dry?

[–]2comment 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Also don't forget overregulation. Big Corps don't mind it, because they have the money to comply and use economies of scale to make it cheap per unit. It becomes an expense to smaller businesses that they have less customers to spread around, so they become less attractive choice.

[–]3savoryprunes 4 points5 points  (0 children)

BigCorps like it. They write the regulative legislation specifically to advantage themselves by disadvantaging small companies.

[–]Endorsed ContributorStories_of_Red 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Let's say you want to start a small business. You do well, have great management and supply chain structure and thus make a nice profit, you end up paying an effective tax rate between 35-45%.

Big corporation moves into your market, because they have millions of dollars invested in tax avoidance vehicles and lobbying they pay under 5% in taxes.

That is not how it works. What kills the small business is not the tax rate, it is the supply chain and purchasing advantage bigco has over smallco. That has zero to do with tax laws, and everything to do with global trade deals.

And people generally consider the C-corp structure of Bigco to be less tax-advantaged than the S-corp/LLC/Partnership structure available to Smallco. You would know that if you actually dealt with tax rates and business operations for small and large companies.

[–]1FunAndFreedom 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is how it works. Tax compliance is extremely expensive and there is a much greater downside to venturing into the grey areas of the tax code if you don't have a legal fund in the 7 figure range.

There's theory, then there's the real world. Supply chain plays a role in some markets, tax compliance plays a role in all markets. My background is in real estate and banking, I've seen many banks sell because the tax/regulation compliance made selling or merging the only choice from a cost scaling standpoint.

For example, do you personally own an international shell company? We both know the advantages in theory, but I'm going to guess neither of us is going to pay $35,000 in accounting and legal fees to save $45,000 on our taxes and risk an audit which could cost another five figures.

Again, theory vs reality.

[–]cpnurrenberg 1 point2 points  (2 children)

[–]Endorsed ContributorStories_of_Red 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Read it yourself:

There are a number of reasons why a profitable company may not pay taxes. For instance, years of deep losses can affect a tax bill.

Take United Continental, which reported a $3.2 billion income tax credit in 2015 despite reporting earnings before taxes of $4.2 billion. Accounting rules allow the airline to offset taxes due with valuation allowances resulting from losses in past years. During 2015, these allowances amounted to $4.7 billion which erased the company's $1.5 billion tax bill based on its normal corporate tax rate.

(Translation necessary? Or do you understand tax accounting enough to know what that means?)

It was a similar situation at Level 3. The company booked a tax credit of $3.2 billion in 2015 despite recording a pre-tax profit of $283 million in the same year. The tax gain was the result of credits associated with losses in previous years in addition to losses at Colorado-based TW Telecom, which Level 3 bought in 2014.

[–]cpnurrenberg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a broken ruleset. What was done with the Panama shit probably wasn't illegal.

(Translation necessary? Or do you understand tax accounting enough to know what that means?)

I'm not super familiar with the specifics. However the whole point of showing you that was to counter your statement that taxes play an insignificant role. If they find a way to get out of taxes, whether illegaly or not, is irrelevant. Things don't start costing less because someone pays less in taxes.


If this site is accurate it sounds like a valuation allowance is akin to getting a payout for your business losing money. How does this differ from the colloquial bailout?

EDIT: Also, this negative value, is that payed out to the company or does it remain as a credit?

[–]wanderer779 1 point2 points  (4 children)

The problem is all the efficiency gains have gone to the elite

Take wal mart for example. What's more efficient, wal mart's distribution system, or one made up of mom and pop operators? The mom and pops were paying more to middlemen and using more in labor/materials to get the goods on the shelf, so they died as they should have. The problem I have is that while consumers benefited from the lower costs, all the wealth from the company is just passed down to heirs so they can be useless, when it could have been used to fund endwments for education, scientific research or what have you.

[–]xu85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, this is a kind of tragedy of the commons

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]1FunAndFreedom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe you misunderstood the post.

[–]Sunshinelorrypop 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's a bit sad in a way, it reminds me of scientology that targeted young stars and filled their minds with a bunch of crap.

[–]greatslyfer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well can you give other examples of when an SJW was caught just trying to maximize their power/influence?

Watson is a special SJW cause well she's rich as fuck

[–]notamosquito 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Poor Emma was just trying to destroy gender stereotypes.

[–]Horus_Krishna_2 2 points3 points  (3 children)

how is she even that rich, she had those harry potter movies but not much else and that was years ago.

[–]Horus_Krishna_2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

she could donate a lot of that to charity! women's causes! amirite? won't hold my breath.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

are you kidding? There were 7 harry potter movies, and every single one of them was insanely popular. I'd be more shocked if she wasn't rich after all of that. I think she's worth under 100 mil though, so i'm not sure why you're making it seem like she's worth more than makes sense.

[–]DJGammaRabbit 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Why are we acting surprised? Fuck that bitch. In every orifice.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Implying that not getting double taxed is bleeding your country dry.

[–]SarpSTA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Her defense will be I did it to show the world that women can be better than men in illegal economical activities and you'll see a big number of womyn going crazy about how empowering (whatever the fuck that means anyway) her actions are.

[–]phx-au 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does anyone actually expect that there is some kind of redpill message in this beyond: "If you are a high net worth, get a decent accountant".

Plus: "If your name appears in the panama papers, hamster out whatever you need to minimise liability".

Social justice faggotry and politics aside, I pay my accountant to minimise my tax liability, and pretty much sign whatever he puts in front of me. If I actually had a decent amount of cash I'd be in a similar situation.

You might be able to dig around for a bunch of tumblrs and shitpost media trying to turn this into a real issue, but why the fuck are you reading those in the first place?

[–]algae_rhythm 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Consciously: "Well I don't really care about those Panama Papers anyway."

Unconsciously: "But she's hot!"

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That was a bit unpredictable,

but one thing i've been saying over and over. Most of these celebs dont even give a shit about whatever cause they'r co-signing, be it feminism, social justice or whatever. They just pick a niche and go with it just to have a reason to get some bonus attention on the side. Most of them, Emma, Beyonce, taylor swift,..etc

and its not even exclusive to leftists, a lot of celebs are getting on the conservative shit just to get that redneck money too. cough trump

But anyway, putting ones money offshore is actually a smart move and i dont blame them, fuck taxes. Its just a bitch move to claim to be a social justice advocate while doing it.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (8 children)

One of the big issues in our world today is wealth inequality.

By what metric? Because liberals said so? Fuck that noise. Income inequality has worsened over the past century. It also just so happens that people are also more well-fed, experience better healthcare outcomes, work in safer jobs, and generally speaking enjoy higher standards of living than ever before.

"Income inequality" is the boogieman that socialists have had to turn to since the global, public collapse of their deity.


[–]Johnny_Lawless_Esq 10 points10 points [recovered]

I have not the words. I am gobsmacked.

If all that money got you was better televisions and bigger houses, yours and Maggie's argument would hold up.

But money is also political power, even the Supreme Court of the US has come out and said it. Concentration of wealth is the concentration of political power, and therefore the process of the concentration of wealth is anti-democratic, and illiberal. I use the word "liberal" not in the political sense of connoting left wing ideas, but in the older sense, relating to liberty itself. Wealth inequality is illiberal, it is destructive of liberty, the kind that everyone can agree on.

I am so incensed and infuriated by your comment that I can't even properly articulate my thoughts about it, but for you and Maggie to respond to this concern with "Well, EVERYONE is better off, haha!" is to brush off the true nature of the problem.

It doesn't matter that the relative volume of your political voice, and therefore politcal freedom and right to self-determination is being eroded, you plebeians should be happy with your Big Macs and your Viagra and American Idol.

Bread and circuses.

[–]Johnny_Lawless_Esq 3 points3 points [recovered]

Meh. I doubt that she or most of the people named in "The Panama Papers" really knew or cared what was being done in their name. They just have an accounting firm that does their books and they, like the rest of us, just say to their accountant "just minimize my tax liability, please," and that was the end of their interest in the matter.

You CAN read too much into this stuff.

[–]1Su-Wu_Red[S] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

You don't think she knew that she was buying her main piece of property through a shell corporation in Panama? You know when your house is not in your name.

[–]Johnny_Lawless_Esq 4 points4 points [recovered]

You are a middle-class person, and are looking at the problem from a middle-class perspective. Middle-class people WOULD know whose name their house is in. Emma Watson is NOT middle-class. She's fucking loaded, and people who are fucking loaded don't look at this stuff the same way as middle class people.

I think she knew in a distant, detached sort of way, but I doubt she gave a shit about the implications of that. I've worked with super rich people. They usually have some sort of structure of agents that does ALL their paperwork for them, from car registrations to property acquisition to taxes to travel arrangements and visas, and all they have to do is just slap a signature on whatever is shoved in front of them.

This agent structure can take many forms based on the preferences of the person, from a personal assistant who is physically close by most of the time and juggles contacts with law firms and talent agencies, or it can be what's called a "family office," which is essentially a small combination law and accounting firm that has only one or two clients, or it can just be a junior attorney in the "wealth management" section of a prestigious and global law firm (one of these is usually involved somehow regardless), or a combination of all of these.

Regardless of the form this agent structure, again, the whole point of it is that the super rich person in question just doesn't have to give a shit about any of this bureaucratic nonsense anymore. I'm sure she knew about her personal financial structures in the sense that she knows that one of the planets in this solar system is called "Uranus," but her knowledge of the important details of both is extremely limited, and her desire to change the state that knowledge even more so.

At some point along the way, probably either to her parents when she first hit it big in the HP series, or when she turned 18 (probably happened on both occasions, actually) some junior lawyer from the above-mentioned wealth-management section of the above-mentioned law firm sat down in front of her and said "I assume you'd like us to minimize your tax liability then?" And then she says, only half-comprehending or -caring, "Yes, please, that sounds nice."

The really great thing about being super rich is that you don't have to give a shit about this administrative crap anymore; you can PAY people to do it for you. Again, and finally, she probably sort of knew about her financial arrangements in a distant way, but never really contemplated the implications or explored their exact nature because she didn't have to.

[–]aido46 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I applaud her and everyone else involved in this "scandal" for trying to have the least amount of their money stolen from them by their respective govts. Although Watson has made most of her money promoting feminism and social justice so that might not apply to her. But overall, I applaud anyone who wants to actually keep their money, as long as they don't then go and advocate everyone else have their money stolen.

[–]dothemathdothemath 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Although Watson has made most of her money promoting feminism and social justice

I think she made most of her money by pretending to be a child wizard going to wizard school

[–]3savoryprunes 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I like this post. You make your case clearly with just a couple of snags which I believe you are painfully aware of at this point.

One criticism: "Literally" means there is an actual, physically tangible vacuum at work. My ex-gf's mouth was literally a vacuum that figuratively sucked me into complacency. It wasn't powerful enough to literally suck a golf ball through a garden hose, but it was figuratively or metaphorically that powerful. In the future, please use "figurative" or "metaphorical" instead.

As far as the political/economic backlash goes: you'll deal with a lot of that here. You've learned some of their trigger words and phrases already. It's funny, because they tend to subscribe to the same left/right manufactured political divide that they purport to be aware of and reject. Once they label you a "BernieBro" or "SJW" or something, their lack of depth and nuance is apparent. You may still learn something from them, but they will not learn anything from you. They've already made up their minds.

[–]1Su-Wu_Red[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha thanks for the feedback. Will be sure to only use literally when it literally applies.

[–]me_gusta_poon 1 point2 points  (29 children)

neoliberal elite that is not paying their fair share of taxes and bleeding societies dry.

This "fair share" faggotry again.

Fuck Emma Watson and all, she's a hypocrite I guess, but how much do you think Emma Watson has actually paid in taxes? Most likely a lot more than any of us have or ever will. She's probably getting raped in taxes.se what I did there?

Did she do anything illegal? No? Then what the fuck?

I'll take any tax write-off, or legal loop hole that'll help me keep more of MY FUCKING MONEY that I can and I suggest you do the same. If its legal its legal.

[–]Bonsai3690 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh I don't doubt we would all do it in her position, it's the fact that she went around spouting off how tax evasion was wrong, while doing it herself.

No one likes a hypocrite.

And on top of it her pathetic excuse of "my privacy" is just patronising as hell, seriously how fucking dumb does she think the general populous is that we believe that she needs an offshore company based with a firm famous for its tax evasion specialty the sole sake of "privacy"

[–]1Su-Wu_Red[S] 24 points25 points  (22 children)

This line of thought amazes me.

I'm just saying, if we agree to rules (e.g. a tax system), everyone should play by them.

You are likely a peon who doesn't have enough money to make moves like this, and have to play by the rules. Yet here you are campaigning for people who are cheating you. The level of brainwashing is amazing.

[–]idgaf- 9 points10 points  (2 children)

At this point, taxes are just theatrical anyway. A way of keeping the audience invested in the act of government. A way of turning us against each other if one of us doesn't "pay our fair share".

The government can fully fund itself by simply borrowing and printing the money. Taxes mainly create an obligation and thus demand for the fiat currency. The monopoly currency is the government's primary source of power.

[–]hores 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly. I love when people argue for respecting the tax system they completely forget the financial firm and GM bailouts of 08-09, not to mention quantitative easing. Taxes are just a control tool, the elite will always win. The power that the non-federal Federal Reserve Bank has is unfathomable by most people.

[–]haxurmind 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No arguments from me there.

Regrettably I'm yet to see a viable means of checking off from this ponzi scheme. Sure you can minimise your exposure to it and have a medium level of comfort as I have (tax avoidance as opposed to tax evasion), but I would not recommend checking off entirely.

There is always a tax that has to be paid on something, can't even own land without that happening either (be it a shire council or land tax depending on country of residence), so an independent self-sufficient lifestyle keeps you on the game board to some extent.

[–]jimmy_toes 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I never agreed to the rules, I was born here. Taxes are enforced through threat of violence by the State. I will always do whatever I can to pay the least amount of taxes. Fuck the State.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Get yourself a good CPA. That's our job. As for local, state and federal authorities, we're not allowed to turn over anything without a court order. Confidentiality laws for CPAs are tougher than those for attorneys.

[–]Dronitto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be honest, they cheat the IRS. Fuck IRS, you are paying for some welfare state, for someone else life.That is taxation.

[–]me_gusta_poon -1 points0 points  (12 children)

if we agree to rules

I didnt agree to shit

You are likely a peon who doesn't have enough money to make moves like this, and have to play by the rules.

Everybody plays by the rules or risk going to jail. Did she do anything illegal? Then rules are the rules.

Yet here you are campaigning for people who are cheating you.

Emma Watson is cheating me? Exactly how?

[–]1Su-Wu_Red[S] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

Social contract theory 101: By participating in society you tacitly consent to follow the laws. If you use your privileged position to bend rules that others can't, then you are cheating because everyone else has to play by a standard that you do not, even though we all agreed that we are better off if everyone follows the rules that we set.

[–]me_gusta_poon 9 points10 points  (8 children)

By participating in society you tacitly consent to follow the laws

There is no consent, and there is no agreeing. You follow the law or you go to jail wether you agree and consent or not. That is social contract theory 101.

If you use your privileged position

Emma Watson is privelaged? Is she some kind of blue blood? Fuck.

to bend the rules

This doesnt mean anything. You are either breaking the law or youre not.

then you are cheating

Cheating by following the rules?

everyone else has to play by a standard that you do not

There is only one tax code

even though we all agreed that we are better off if everyone follows the rules that we set.

Nobody agreed to shit. we didnt set any rules. You certainly didnt. Emma Watson (as far as anyone can tell) followed the set rules. You just dont like them.

Look man, if you want to close all possible loop holes, thats going to be one big ass (impossible) tax code on top of our already big ass tax code that no one will be able to follow. Are you really ready to say "you cant under any circumstances and for any reason write off any amount of taxes whatsoever or attempt to lower your tax burden in any way and must always pay to the fullest extent considering all income, expenses, and property." Because thats crazy (and some bullshit). You're also taking away the governments power for tax incentives.

[–]1PrinceofSpades 5 points6 points  (7 children)

Okay I'm going to edit this now, and try to make it clear that I'm talking about two different things at once without clarifying because I just fucking woke up on a day off, and seeing people acting like it's okay for the biggest sources of revenue in the country to not be paying any taxes is somehow okay pisses me the fuck off.

Except it isn't even really a loophole that is the primary problem.

S-Corporations (along with countless other types of companies) pay zero in federal taxes, and here in Oregon only 150$ in state taxes. Large fucking multi-million dollar companies paid 150 total dollars and haven't for as long as the CPA I worked under has been doing their taxes.

I'm going to correct myself because I didn't bother looking shit up on Nike specifically, but was rather talking about gigantic corporations as a whole. Sure, some C-corps pay taxes, but it's a significantly smaller % than it should be. In fact, if there was a simple comprehensive list of names you recognize as household names, I'm sure many people, even here, would be shocked to learn how little those name brands pay in taxes, %wise, each year (pro tip, a bunch of them, such as Facebook, don't pay a dime [zuckerberg pays taxes now but he was pretty good at avoiding them for a while there, too]).

Re-write common... Overly complex tax law, and suddenly us as individual tax payers would likely only need to pay 1/10th of what we currently pay (probably less honestly, although the end result will be higher, not lower) and the government would still collect more in taxes annually than it does now. That obviously would never fucking happen; I'm just talking about reaching the same total collected amount that is collected now each year would easily be doable with a fraction of the little guy's dollar.

That's just how much big business is worth as a whole in this country, and why corruption like the panama papers leak is so prevalent. It's hard for companies to hide their earnings, but it's much easier for those who run said companies to do exactly that. So stop trusting the CEO-tier of people, and just start siphoning off from the reported earnings. Makes the IRS's job a whole hell of a lot easier, too.

[–]true_detective_sf 9 points9 points [recovered]

Nike is not an S Corporation. It is a C Corporation, as is every single publicly traded company in the United States.

Nike paid nearly $1 billion in taxes last year, on $4.2 billion in profits.

C Corporations in the United States pay one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. S Corporations, which are pretty rare because they can't be taken public, pass through all profit to shareholders. This income is then taxed at ordinary income rates, not capital gains, 39.6%.

Get your facts straight.

[–]1PrinceofSpades 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Yes, it was wrong for me to infer that about Nike specifically. Also I didn't do a lick of research because I just woke up and just assumed it was another tax-avoiding company like so many are. I've since corrected my post. Point I was making, in a general sense, still stands though.

[–]tekn0_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

best when your point stands on facts bro. Let's not hamster away from a logical argument.

[–]5 Endorsed ContributorStayinghereforreal 4 points5 points  (1 child)

So Nike So Nike, worth billions, pays zero dollars annually to the government

I assume you are saying they have not paid taxes recently.

Please examine the following, and identify where your allegation is supported by the filed SEC information.


I would also note that:

  1. Nike is not an s-corporation. It is a subchapter C corp.

  2. Although the annual report information suggests Nike paid income tax in 2015, I would note that even if Nike had not paid any tax in a particular year, it is incorrect to look at any year of income tax payments by a taxpayer, and claim "they pay no taxes." The concepts of loss carry forwards, weighing of expenses versus revenue, and any number of basic and totally fair tax rules can wipe out net taxable income for a particular year.

And if you are claiming that Nike has NEVER paid net federal taxes, please say so, so we know just how extreme a factual stance you are taking here. Then please show how you know this.

Re-write that law, and suddenly us as individual tax payers would likely only need to pay 1/10th of what we currently pay (probably less honestly, although the end result will be higher, not lower) and the government would still collect more in taxes annually than it does now.

What law? No seriously, what tax law are you saying must be rewritten? Cite the specific section. And then show us how that affects the payment by the different marginal tax rates for individuals and businesses.

[–]me_gusta_poon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Re-write that law, and suddenly us as individual tax payers would likely only need to pay 1/10th of what we currently pay

Lol. You think they're going to lower your taxes if they raise them for Nike. They're not.

re-write that law

Then re-write the fucking law for fucks sake. Thats what I'm arguing. Is it legal or not? It is? Then your problem is with the law. Change it.

Re-write that law, and suddenly us as individual tax payers would likely only need to pay 1/10th

That doesnt follow. What law are you going to put in place?

except it isnt even really a loop hole... S-Corporations

Also, Nike is a corporation not a person. Its not a real thing. Its a legal construct. Tax them all you want. Who cares? We're talking about people in this thread.

Sucks for Nike though. They'd probably just leave Oregon.

[–]1aguy01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She's a piece of shot hypocrite but the real ducks are the bankers and politicians who set this shit up.

[–]juliusstreicher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nobody's pissing about her paying/notpaying taxes. The complaint is that, while she makes demands for social programs, and castigates others for not doing what she wills, she is not paying for it, and, in fact, is jumping through hoops to see that she pays as little for it as possible. Which means, that she is making orders for things that others must pay.

[–]Faps2Down_Votes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wealth inequality

In to the trash you go. Fuck off pinko.

[–]SaiyanPrince_Vegeta 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Wealth inequality is liberal bullshit. You should know that.

Phrases like "money being vacuumed to the top" are pathetic attempts to get us to turn towards Marxism.

[–]Horus_Krishna_2 5 points6 points  (2 children)

even if so, it's still a good thread to show proof of hypocrisy. I think the truth is, rich folks, like emma here, want just socialism/Marxism for the rich. So if someone is a liberal and wants socialism, well we have had socialism for the rich only since 08 when banks got bailed out. But not capitalism either, crony capitalism. So whether you're a liberal or a conservative, either way you're getting screwed right now.

[–]SaiyanPrince_Vegeta 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I agree. And it issolutely hypocritical and I agree with that part of the post as well. However, his assertion that everyone should pay "their fair share" and other similar points are tells of a harmful philosophy that doesn't rely on being self reliant which is kind of what trp is all about

[–]Horus_Krishna_2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

true. being red pill is similar to waking up about these kind of economic things. pay their fair share? do any of us, rich or poor, need to pay these pieces of paper that are printed out of nothing? money is made up just like wrong blue pill ideas.

[–]A_local_guy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know tons of government officials from around the world named in those papers male and female. Yet people get hung up on some dumb actress being named. I could care less.

[–]bisjac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do these leaks work anyway? The ones in power could easily discount it all has a hoax couldnt they? Since the ones who leak it are at risk of prison or death, so ita not like they are bringing the documents forward to confirm the process in front of congress.

[–]spoona96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

is this linked as in wrong doing? Or like trump where he was linked but because he has legit businesses there and stuff?

[–]AkaviriDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Now, offshore companies are not illegal per se. However, this is because the world's powerful write the rules to not make them illegal."

I can see how one would benefit from this. You'd tax heavily the middle or upper middle class. While the truly wealthy and knowledgable would go through the special methods to stay super rich.

"If the masses truly understood the big picture and had control the legislative process, these entities would be regulated way tighter than they are now, possibly banned."

Wouldn't it be better to stop fighting against people's interests and incentives, which almost never works, and try to understand and erase the reasons why these people are putting their money away into other countries in the first place?

[–]eddiae 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how is wealth inequality an issue ? join them the winner takes it all, seems fair to me.

[–]johnchapel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She's a SJW?

I didn't know this.

[–]wanderer779 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know much about her but I think that if you look at the things she has done, speaking to the UN about feminism , dating the 1%, dodging taxes... it all makes sense if you view her as a social animal using whatever strategy is available to her to maximize her status, instead of some kind of moral leader. This is just what people do.

As for her explanation... there could be something to it, the devil would be in the details. But if it walks and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

load more comments (60 replies)