And the .001 consistently encroach on our political policies for private benefit.

I see these tax loopholes as bugs/vulnerabilities in the tax code. And just like in software, bad actors have an incentive to keep the bugs in place.

Shedding light on them is a first step towards greater awareness and eventual fixes.

> Taxes aren't and shouldn't be secret.

Cool. Would you mind sending me your tax returns (assuming you're in the US), or similar income history?

You can oppose tax loopholes without encroaching on the privacy of others. To use your example, imagine dumping hacked Facebook user data because you don't like bugs in Facebook software

That's an unfair response. It's reasonable to want the rules to change for society and be willing to play along. That's different from wanting to be the only one to do it.

> Imagine dumping hacked facebook user data because you don’t like bugs in Facebook software

No need for imagination here... This happens all the time. Data leaks are a regular outcome from security bugs/breeches.

And it's just as unethical in that case as well

Are you suggesting that the top “earners” who manipulate their taxes are acting ethically?

These people deserve (and can afford) every ounce of scrutiny they receive.

Suppose I like to donate to nonprofits supporting political dissidents of another nation and that makes me an assassination target, or hell political or adjacent orgs in this country (BLM, PP, NRA) and that makes me a harassment target

What's the argument in keeping it secret? Politicians routinely (Trump notably being the exception) release these all the time.

The bad actors with the most incentive to keep the bugs in place are the same people that put the bugs into the system: lawmakers. They might occasionally close a bug, but they are not interested in preventing them being introduced. They sell these bugs/vulnerabilities. That's the business they are in.

Ah yes, an eye for an eye.

How you feel about this is going to depend on where you are on the political spectrum. I fully support this decision based on where the country stands on inequality and socioeconomic power imbalances. It’s in the public interest to demonstrate the result of poorly constructed public policy (and thereby stoke inertia to fix it and erode wealth inequality).

I’m happy to make my tax returns and income history public if the wealthy are required to do the same.

So if someone wanted to demonstrate poor building codes by setting your house on fire, that would be okay too, since you know, it's in the public interest to demonstrate lax building codes?

Privacy is a right that I would think more people on this forum would respect. I don't see why you're so happy to offer up the rights of others as sacrificial lambs to make some political point.

A better analogy would be breaking and entering to collect evidence that a building was unsafe for occupancy, and I’d support that as well under the assumption that due process had failed and there was risk to those marginalized.

I don’t believe there is an absolute right to privacy. As always, there’s nuance.

Does this hypothesize the lack of a functioning court system to issue a search warrant, the lack of observing the Fourth Amendment in the US (or equivalent in many other countries), or both?

No hard and fast rules. Like obscenity, a reasonable person believes the situation warrants it when they see it.

So evidence obtained illegally outside of due-process is fair game in your book?

I guess by saying "when due process failed" kind of makes it so since by definition it "failed".

>So evidence obtained illegally outside of due-process is fair game in your book?

So evidence of horrible crimes should be ignored if subjective "due-process" isn't followed? You do realize that the moneyed elite have disproportionate influence over "process" and law, right?

Focus on the leaks and whether they are true, not the messenger.

The "horrible crimes" of following the applicable tax laws. Got it.

I'm not focusing on the messenger. I'm questioning the ethics to violate the privacy of private individuals to try to score political points.

You're not advocating for modeling our actions, social interactions, behaviours, and relationships after our criminal justice system, right? Also you're not advocating for an equivalentcy between judicial evidenciary procedure and information gathering, and judicial due process and social due process, right?

If you purposely set it on fire, thats arson. But actually yes, in many cases accidents are catalyst needed to make change happen for the benefit of the public.

A dangerous intersection gets a traffic light after a horrible car crash.

A dangerous building design code gets corrected after the doors wont open outward during a fire.

Problems need to first come to light to be fixed.

What? That house burning example is absurd and bad logic

> So if someone wanted to demonstrate poor building codes by setting your house on fire, that would be okay too, since you know, it's in the public interest to demonstrate lax building codes?

Yes, of course destroying property and incurring expenses for the local government is exactly the same as releasing records... oh no wait - its not at all the same.

They are not private individuals. They are individuals that are of public interest (much like celebrities) and hold significant sway over communities (much like public officials). This is pretty standard legal precedent.

So privacy is only for those that aren't celebrities? Do you have some barometer for what makes a "celebrity"? Blue check mark?

Right to privacy is a human right. Do you agree? If so, are there classes of human rights that aren't applicable to some groups of individuals?

It's actually very simple. If a year from now you find that the authors (Engelberg and Tofel, others?) of this project are still free then everyone whose data they published was a legit "celebrity" and the leak was OK with the current administration. If you suddenly discover that all of ProPublica are actually sex offenders and evade justice by hiding out in embassies (or something similar) then they overreached and leaked the wrong data on an off-limits "non-celebrity". Makes sense.

Courts exist for this reason. On one hand, you have the right to privacy (though it is not spelled out that clearly, it is inferred).

On the other, you have freedom of the press clearly outlined in the first amendment. There is no perfect answer and it will be subject to some debate. But in this particular instance, precedence has made it clear that people of significant stature (and that could mean a blue check is a signal of that in court!) have less of a right to privacy when weighed against the first amendment.

Unfortunately you are speaking of ideals. In reality a person's right to privacy is dependent on many factors including their country, race, etc.

With regards to celebrity, there is absolutely a tradeoff. On paper celebrities have the same civil rights as anyone else, but e.g. have you heard of the paparazzi before?

> Unfortunately you are speaking of ideals. In reality a person's right to privacy is dependent on many factors including their country, race, etc.

I disagree. A right is a human right. Human rights are not granted by a country, they can only be violated. My right to free thought and expression doesn't cease being a right if I'm in an oppressive state. A state can violate my rights but human rights are universal. You can disagree that privacy is a human right, and that's fine if you do.

In regards to paparazzi, if you're in a public space, you don't have the same right. It's balance by the right of another person taking photos in that same public space. There is no expectation of privacy, so I'm free to snap your picture, same as I have a right to record a police interaction (despite what some legislation might have you believe). But that doesn't mean I have the right to break into your home and record you sleeping.

I didn’t disagree. I said it’s an ideal.

Do you seriously think the experience is the same in public between an average citizen and a celebrity? There is a huge trade off that a celebrity accepts when becoming a household name/face.

> Right to privacy is a human right. Do you agree? If so, are there classes of human rights that aren't applicable to some groups of individuals?

Yes, but right to extreme wealth isn't. I don't think people should be able to control this amount of wealth at all, but while they can I think public scrutiny over their finances is entirely reasonable.

Hi, exotree, I have declared you to be of interest to the public. What's your annual take-home pay?

They obviously considered the ethics of this and decided to share for “the public interest” and not “a political purpose” as you say. What politicians do with this information is another matter. They’re simply telling the story like journalists are supposed to do!

Labeling something a "True Tax Rate" (paid taxes / wealth increase) isn't journalism, it's advocacy.

Good point. I guess I see the advantages of the ultra rich as something that shouldn’t be politicized. That’s some bullshit that all stripes of political belief should agree on and change. Like, who wouldn’t advocate for that? (Besides the ultra rich. And please don’t say those who aspire to be ultra rich, because that’s not a realistic argument/that idea should die)

Edit: Can you explain why the phrase “true tax rate” is considered political advocacy?

Let's talk about the actual damage that could occur to an individual here. The fact of the matter is, billionaires are effectively isolated from all societal repercussions, where the average person simply isn't. Even if you waved a magic wand, and prevented them from making any money through any mechanism, and they just had spend their wealth, their lifestyle would not change at all. They literally can not spend the amount of money they have, in the years of life they have remaining. Even the threat of jail time isn't a real threat, given the serious discrepancies in prosecution and sentencing guidelines, let alone the plausibility of someone pulling a Carlos Ghosn[0], which is much easier to do when you effectively have infinite resources.

Now let's look at the other side. The societal benefit is making these effects current preferential policies concrete. Often politicians and other supporters of the super wealthy intentionally muddy the waters by talking about "small businesses", "family farms", and other middle class and upper middle class lifestyles. (e.g. The arguments made by against inheritance tax, that only affects net worths in excess of $11.7 million, or the arguments based on absolute dollar amounts rather than income or wealth percentages.) By making the effects concrete rather than abstract, it's much harder to argue that there is any sort of negative individual effects on ultra wealthy.[1]

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-50964040

[1] For example: Even if you took half of Warren Buffet's wealth ($110 B) every year for the rest of his life (90 years old, today), he'd probably still die a billionaire. And even if he lived to be a 100, he'd still have $100 million.

> quite selectively and carefully

> allowing readers to see patterns that were until now hidden

am I being too cynical, or is this a "pick one" situation? what "pattern" are the readers supposed to see in this carefully chosen subset of the data? what patterns do the unchosen subsets show?

This is where trust comes in. Most people need a narrative and a story to follow the threads; they are not experts in determining what the data does or does not tell us, and someone has to attempt to do so.

I'd give ProPublica the benefit the doubt here. They have the resources to hire the right talent, and that talent is likely empowered to keep conjecture at bay or properly disclosed.

And, of course, you're unlikely to get all the data. Stories like this will nearly always, in some form or fashion, be based on a somewhat incomplete snapshot of data or documents. But taking that data and corroborating it with what we do know is often enough to add validity to the assumptions that are being reached by a publication such as ProPublica.

> So it's okay to encroach on the privacy of private individuals as long as it serves a political purpose?

Interesting how your turn "public interest" into "political purpose".

> The more money you have, the less right to privacy you have.

I'd change this to: The more power you have, the less right to privacy you have.

Money is just one form of power. If there was a way to give up the "power" that money provides (without giving up their money) then I'd say they can regain their right to privacy. Transparency is needed for the people to keep those with power accountable (in a free society and/or without violence).

I think, in this case, the rich encroach on my privacy enough that it seems proportionate.

It's not okay to shoot your neighbor. It is okay to shoot your neighbor if they're shooting at you.

When the rich stop trading my data, I'll fight for their privacy too.