Ahahahahahaha

The #PanamaPapers leak shows how the super-rich and multinationals are actively avoiding paying their fair share of tax, while ordinary people are footing the bill for government spending. Tax havens are at the centre of this scandal, and are fuelling staggering inequality.

We live in a world now where just 62 billionaires have the same wealth as the poorest half of the planet combined – that’s 3.5 billion people. Poor countries lose at least $170 billion every year, because rich individuals and multinational companies hide vast amounts of money in tax havens. This is lost tax revenue that’s desperately needed for vital public services like healthcare and education.

Standard lefty noises from Oxfam. And then at the bottom:

This webpage has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union.

Group of high tax governments supports charity against low tax governments.

We might even call it the EU paying someone to lobby the EU….

21 thoughts on “Ahahahahahaha”

  1. They paint a picture of 62 billionaires cackling away on a mountain of gold, cash and jewels.

    In reality I wonder how many people those 62 billionaires employ. Most of them are going to own vast corporations.

    And besides, if they didn’t steal the money, who gives a fuck?

  2. How many working at Oxfam will have more wealth than a couple of billion of the poorest people? I would guess a few…

  3. How many working at Oxfam will have more wealth than a couple of billion of the poorest people?

    That’s Tim’s usual line – anybody with no debts and $10 in their pocket has more wealth than {a substantial %age of the world’s population.}

    I would note that lack of wealth and poor (usually seen as insufficient income) aren’t well correlated anyway.

    1. (I am under the impression that, from contacts in the relevant countries but I’ve no hard evidence that …) Lots of the (not the very worst) income poor (especially in India) actually have access to a not un-reasonable store of wealth (family jewellery) but, for various reasons, wouldn’t dare sell it to alleviate temporary financial discomfort.

    2. In the Western world, especially in countries with expensive debt-funded university education, lots of new professionals on reasonable or even high incomes are massively indebted.

  4. “have access to a not un-reasonable store of wealth (family jewellery) but, for various reasons, wouldn’t dare sell it to alleviate temporary financial discomfort.”

    Oddly, it’s largely the other way around. That gold jewelry *is* the liquid savings of the family. Paper money? Banks? Pah! Have a good harvest? Wifey gets a set of earnings on the understanding of all that a bad one sees them going back to the jewelers.

  5. Too many lefties seem to have seen the Scrooge McDuck character as a child and never updated their world view since……………………..

  6. charities engaging in political lobbying?

    Ahh, but they aren’t directly supporting one political party against another. Hence by the watered down definitions adopted during the endless roundabout between NGO and SPAd roles during the Blair / Brown years, this isn’t “political”, no matter how much it quacks.

  7. Jim said:
    “Too many lefties seem to have seen the Scrooge McDuck character as a child and never updated their world view since”

    Have you seen one of my conference presentations? That’s a line I’ve been using.

  8. @Richard: sadly not, not being the conference going type 🙂 it was Andrew C’s description further up the thread of billionaires cackling manically on a pile of gold that brought it to my mind.

  9. Still no definition of “fair share”. Until they define it in an objective pure mathematical manner, the only definition is “what the law demands”. And by definition, people and organisations that pay the amount of tax they have been billed as defined by law are paying their “fair share”

  10. Bloke in Costa Rica

    The 62 billionaires have enriched my life a great deal more than the 3.5 billion peasants, who can fuck off.

  11. Either we didn’t get full disclosure from Tim or the site has been updated. It currently says:

    This webpage has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this webpage are the sole responsibility of Oxfam and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

    My bet is that the site has been updated.

  12. ‘This is lost tax revenue that’s desperately needed for vital public services like healthcare and education.’

    Like? One should be able to name what’s desperate. Are they spending money on other things, while healthcare and education are desperate?

  13. Aah, yes, Oxfam – a political lobbying organisation with a massive turnover which pays its cadres massive salaries that pays no tax cos it’s registered as a charity.

    Another glass-houses-and-stones case…

  14. @Gamecock: no, to these sort of people ALL public services are vital as they provide middle class people with undemanding well paid office jobs with good pensions. The actual ‘production’, if there is any, is a complete afterthought, and irrelevant to the necessity of the public service in question. As in the NHS, local government, Education etc etc.

    “This webpage has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this webpage are the sole responsibility of Oxfam and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.”

    I bet they wouldn’t get many more grants if their reports were diametrically opposed to the position of the EU…………….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *