I have noticed nothing "pejorative" in the language used in the document. I'd be more pejorative myself. The individuals with accounts are described clinically - "high net worth individuals". The ethics of using the leaked data is examined.
The situation that individuals with these accounts may be committing crimes is also described dispassionately. It is a fact that these accounts are often used for the crime of tax evasion. Do you want to dispute this fact? Or do you want language that tries avoid any mention of this likelihood? That would be less "pejorative" I suppose.
Edit: OK, the Mel Brooks quote is an exception to the generally clinical language. But by that point the author has made their case and should get at least a little cookie.
> I have noticed nothing "pejorative" in the language used in the document.
First page after the abstract
"It is this information asymmetry that gives
rise to a host of problems" as opposed to benefits?
This study is fairly balanced but chooses to only focus on illegal tax evasion by the wealthy and corrupt behavior of public officials. Instead of legal tax deferment or avoidance.
Because legal tax avoidance isn't an issue and is a topic for another paper.
Why is every second reply in this comment thread trying to deflect away from the documented widespread, commonplace fraud that constitutes a wealth transfer away from common taxpayers?
Because it fails to distinguish. This paper would be more productive talking about the cybersecurity failings of the bank in the Isle of Man and how the country's data legislation can be improved.
The history of state revenue sources has been much broader than the last 100 years of worrying about whether everyone is getting hosed equally. High tax jurisdictions who will never balance their budget are in a quagmire of their own design, and they lack the consensus mechanisms to do anything about it. They are failed states in this regard and that has nothing to do with rest of the world.
So what exactly are the 'benefits' of this information asymmetry?
What 'benefit' is derived from Congolese President's ability to have 'hidden' accounts on the Isle of Man, instead of accounts that are available to be scrutinized by Congolese authorities?
If corrupt there is no benefit to argue in favor of, if not corrupt then access to the international markets obviously
Like I said, its actually strange to focus on corrupt behavior of public officials to say another country is the problem and not the corrupt official. A reason this is strange that you might not have considered is that more universally respected countries such as the US and the UK offer the same opaque tax evading capabilities to non-citizens as the smaller countries they complain about. As well as access to international markets. So focus on the corrupt person, or educate on how to use more competitive jurisdictions instead of being manipulated into the small country tax haven meme. Its just larger economic unions exempting themselves from scrutiny and saying other countries are the problem.
"if not corrupt then access to the international markets obviously"
? That is not a 'benefit' of hidden bank accounts.
"US and the UK offer the same opaque tax evading capabilities to non-citizens"
They don't really. Nations have tax treaties to avoid this kind of stuff. While there are loopholes etc. it's not going to be a good idea to keep stolen money in London, it will get frozen.
"So focus on the corrupt person" - the corruption is enabled by banking secrecy. A big focus on corruption is going after hidden networks.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is really "innocent until there's sufficient evidence to strongly suspect you are guilty". There aren't very many innocent reasons to have accounts in tax havens.
>There aren't very many innocent reasons to have accounts in tax havens.
I see. And the innocent ones? Just acceptable collateral damage in your guilty by association campaign?
The irony is that likely you and everyone else probably has a fair chunk of their net wealth flowing through these types of structures via their pension/insurance.
Pension funds don't just hop onto Robinhood app and buy a 100MM basket of shares. It gets structured through places like these. Same for large chunks of the cross jurisdiction M&A activity.
Unfortunately it's all confidential so the people that know can't talk, and everyone else has knowledge/opinion made up entirely out of clickbait and stuff like this...someone patching together a "how the elites screw you" article based on patchy partial leaks. The notion of patching together something that is global based on one leak from one bank in one jurisdiction is comical in itself. It's like looking at the left rear tyre of a car and speculating that cars are probably all scams because you can't see what makes it move forward.
The information asymetry is insane and 99.99% of the world is on the wrong side of it.
> There aren't very many innocent reasons to have accounts in tax havens.
Courts disagree.
The primary form of investment firms (PE firms) rely on an "onshore" feeder, for certain countries taxable persons to invest into, and an "offshore" feeder for everyone else as well as those same countries non-taxable persons (charities, retirement plans) to invest into. The offshore feeder typically being an offshore corporation taxed only at the entity level, in a place that does not levy tax on the kinds of transactions conducted, and in many cases also means banking and brokerage accounts offshore. But it also means banking and brokerage accounts onshore under the name of the offshore entity, because it is completely legal and the relevant financial professionals are completely familiar with it.
Status in our society is based on understanding whose opinion matters, and that is the executive and judicial branch, while the legislative branch and head of states pretends to act like they are in an adversarial relationship with people that keep their money.
I have noticed nothing "pejorative" in the language used in the document. I'd be more pejorative myself. The individuals with accounts are described clinically - "high net worth individuals". The ethics of using the leaked data is examined.
The situation that individuals with these accounts may be committing crimes is also described dispassionately. It is a fact that these accounts are often used for the crime of tax evasion. Do you want to dispute this fact? Or do you want language that tries avoid any mention of this likelihood? That would be less "pejorative" I suppose.
Edit: OK, the Mel Brooks quote is an exception to the generally clinical language. But by that point the author has made their case and should get at least a little cookie.