Addendum_Forthcoming said:
runic knight said:
A statistic of another nation is not factual, but your ranting about your own criminal history and (finally) linking of an article talking about how 5000 people came forward in a completely different nation being talked about is more accurate?
Rich commit more crimes than working class poor? Prove it.
Actually, no, first define it properly. Then prove it. You seem to thing crimes are different for poor and rich as it is. And I don't even know if you are talking about percentage based or collectively, what defines "rich" or "poor" here, or even what damn nation you are specifying or if you are talking world-wide, so be sure to clarify that first before proving because I have my doubts you'll find any statistics to demonstrate this at all. And if all you end up having is a claim that rich people are committing more crimes built out of extrapolated examples and personal anecdote, I wont even be surprised at this point.
It is entirely unrelated to the topic at all at this point but you know what, what the hell, why not this time. I want to see this one.
Oh FFS...
A: Firstly tax evasion (and let me be clear, *evasion* like the article stresses, not avoidance) is a fucking felony. It is a *crime* ... it has specific codification in both the U.S. and Australia with legal definitions with statutory punishments that are not merely based on punitive damages awarded to an aggrieved private entity or entities.
B: About 6.5% of the entire U.S. population have a felony record.
C: We know from conservative estimates that private tax havens have in between $21-31T, $9.8T of held by fewer than 100,000 people. To put this into perspective... the entire nominal market GDP worth of the U.S. and Japan combined is held in tax havens by fewer hands than 100,000 people.
And of that $21-31T, there are a staggering 100 million people (and corporations, banks, lendee insurers, etc) who share a stake in it. According to the economist, Henry James.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571873-how-stop-companies-and-people-dodging-tax-delaware-well-grand-cayman-missing-20
It is impossible to calculate... but it's safe to say even non-tax havens like Australia, 30% of corporations alone pay zero corporate taxes. Merely PAYE and GST. Of which more than 10% of the super wealthy (holdings of $30M or more assets in individual control) are known tax evasion offenders by a case study *of 5000 confessions*, of which 4% of Australia's highest earners fessed up to tax evasion. Fessed up. Said they were guilty. More than enough to make a viable study. After all... 24 million people and you're doing a study on the top 1% ...
And this is not fucking North Korea. By all comparative measures, Australia is one of the few countries to actually start naming and shaming in order to drive up amnesty volunteering of tax data in offshore accounts in exchange for legal clemency.
The IRS don't even bother. In 2006 their grand total of all white collar crime (not including tax evasion) was less than 3000 sentencings. In the entire U.S. The idea of the super wealthy and corporations tax evading is not a myth, and I know for a fact it is far more rampant than all other serious crime put together. This is despite the fact that 50% of All Australian taxes are paid by the top 10% of working age income brackets.
http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-50-of-all-income-tax-in-australia-paid-by-10-of-the-working-population-45229
So the upper middle class and lower are pulling their fair share. But not groups like Pratt Holdings, with 2.5bn in annually adjusted holdings paying 0% corporate taxes.
You have done nothing I asked here.
First, on what you did put forth here, you didn't define anything, you just ramped up on another rant.
I asked you to properly define things first, since I knew if you didn't it would be another rambling incoherent mess of irrelevant data that is utterly useless to anything at all but your own mental constructions.
I don't know what your statement of "rich commit more crimes" relates to as you switch between multiple nations and yet don't make any comprehensive stand on if you meant worldwide.
I still don't know how you define "rich" or "poor" in this case. You list "super rich", which only further confuses the point by adding a subgroup to an already not defined group comparison.
I don't know how you are defining "crime" even, as you seem to be just rolling with it defined as "felony" which is just a specific type of crime, and yet later on you switch back to general "breaking the law" type of crime. And throughout you seem to switch between arguing the amount of money involved in such crimes to arguing the amount of such crimes happening. So are we talking all crime in this comparison? Just felonies? Are we judging the amount of crimes committed by either group based on the financial impact?
At this point your entire argumentation presentation is the equivalent of vomiting on the desk and attaching thumb tacks with string between various chunks.
You examples are extrapolated based on phantoms and baseless assertions. I mean come on, the differences in legal systems alone between australia and the US make the claims to crime shakey at best as actions that are illegal in australia are not always in the US, and that isn't even taking into account that tax loopholes, business breaks and other perfectly legal shenanigans exist so that people don't even need to break the law in order to screw the system and reap benefits for doing so. What is a felony tax evasion in one may not be the same in another, and without some sort of valid breakdown, your previous example still isn't anything more than saying "but look, there was 5000 criminals" when talking about a nation of many millions. The new example you tacked onto the discussion about tax havens is a little better in that regard, but again because you didn't define shit, it is just more useless ontop of old.
Am I suppose to be looking at the amount of money involved?
Am I suppose to be looking at the total amount of people connected to the banks?
Am I suppose to be looking at the 100,000 people you defined as super rich?
Am I looking at the entire suspected 100 million connected as all criminals?
And who am I suppose to be comparing them to as the "poor" in this irrelevant comparison to justify your weird statement? I don't even want to say this is comparing apples ot oranges as at least the two of those are still fruit. This is comparing apples to questioning if robots feel love.
Compared to worldwide populations of 7 billion, 100 million is barely a drop in the bucket, and that is giving you full credit that what you are citing is "evidence" that all 100 million connected to the bank havens are criminals themselves.
So are you arguing that criminality is determined by how much value they steal? It seems that is your argument but because you refused, yet again, to actually define anything, I am again looking at your regurgitation of nonsense and being expected to sift through the chunks to try to glean what your rantings actually is trying to say.
Secondly, and I was hoping you'd have bothered to actually address this last time since I thought it was important enough to ask you twice:
What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about in my first post?
