Disclosure report Bezos, Musk and Co. hardly paid any taxes

As of: 06/09/2021 05:04 a.m.

A new report reveals that the richest Americans hardly pay any income tax – among them Amazon founder Bezos and Tesla boss Musk. The tax authority wants to determine how the confidential data became public. By Torsten Teichmann, ARD studio Washington In 2007, multibillionaire Jeff Bezos didn’t pay a dime in US income tax. In 2011, too, the Amazon founder offset his income against losses so much that the US tax authority IRS granted him an income-related child allowance of 4,000 US dollars. This had often been speculated about. But now the numbers are known. The foundation for investigative journalism ProPublica quotes from Bezos tax return. These tax tricks are not illegal. But the network of loopholes and discounts remains denied to most Americans due to lack of assets. They move from salary to salary, as US President Joe Biden complains time and again: “Sometimes I argue with friends in the Democratic Party about it: It’s okay to be a billionaire or a millionaire, but pay your fair share.”

What tax amounts are fair for the rich?

But how much should the top 0.01 percent in the US contribute financially to society? There is a dispute about this. The ProPublica report rekindles this debate. The foundation has obtained official tax documents from thousands of the richest Americans, says the journalist Jesse Eisinger involved in the NPR radio station. They cover a period of 15 years. ProPublica initially refers to the reported income from the tax returns of the 25 richest Americans and the increase in wealth over the period that is not taxed. In addition to Bezos, Tesla founder Elon Musk, Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg and New York’s ex-Mayor Michael Bloomberg will be there.

If we look at the actual tax on capital growth – which is essentially your income – then its tax rate is 3.4 percent. For people like Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffet, it’s even less.

Far from the top tax rate of 37 percent

The investor Warren Buffet paid 0.1 percent tax on income and asset growth between 2014 and 2018, ProPublica calculates. At Bezos it is just under one percent. Americans pay an average of 14 percent income tax. The top tax rate would be 37 percent. America’s billionaires are far from that. The Biden administration reacted cautiously to the findings. Any unauthorized publication of government documents is against the law, said Biden’s spokeswoman Jen Psaki. The Ministry of Finance is trying to clarify how the tax returns have come to the public.

Generally speaking, we know that more needs to be done to ensure that businesses and high-income citizens do more of their fair share. This is what the President says in his proposals, in his budget, and this is how he wants to pay for his proposals. A government proposal provides for higher taxes for households with an annual income of more than $ 400,000. According to the ProPublica report, however, it is completely unclear whether a corresponding reform will generate additional income as long as the loopholes in the tax laws of the USA are not closed.

Committee of Inquiry Wirecard and the “Mastercard” from Commerzbank

As of: 06/09/2021 3:01 a.m.

The parliamentary groups’ final reports on the Wirecard committee of inquiry are almost ready. Nevertheless, the panel heard witnesses well into the night. It was about early information from Commerzbank. By Arne Meyer-Fünffinger and Josef Streule, BR When the Munich Chief Public Prosecutor Hildegard Bäumler-Hösl entered the “Europa Hall” in the Paul-Löbe-Haus, the Wirecard investigative committee had already spent almost nine hours of intensive witness questioning behind it. At this point in time, the committee had already questioned the head of the FIU anti-money laundering unit, Christof Schulte, and the State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Finance, Rolf Bösinger – with unsurprising results. Both vigorously defended the work of the authority in connection with the Wirecard scandal. “We have no indications that the FIU would not have fulfilled its legal mandate,” emphasized Bösinger. The FIU has been standing for reporting from BR research for days again more and more criticized. In February 2019, Commerzbank submitted a detailed suspicious transaction report to the FIU – including a list of almost 350 suspicious transfers and a short report to make the FIU’s work easier. A reference to the allegations made against former Wirecard managers was not recognizable, explained Schulte and Bösinger. The FIU therefore only forwarded this suspicious activity report to the responsible criminal investigation authorities in Bavaria in July 2020, after seven foreign partner authorities had been sent “spontaneous information” in July 2019. Schulte emphasized that there has been no response from them to this day. And apart from that: “The Commerzbank report was by our standards not a particularly good report,” said the FIU boss.

Prosecutor: Commerzbank report was the “Mastercard”

The Munich public prosecutor’s witness, Chief Public Prosecutor Bäumler-Hösl, arranged the Commerzbank report completely differently when she was interrogated: “The major money laundering report from Commerzbank is the Mastercard. This is the most valuable and most extensive money laundering report. It is elementary. ” “That’s a statement,” said the committee chairman Kay Gottschalk (AfD) spontaneously. The lawyer also contradicted Bösinger and Schulte on a central point: Both had emphasized that Commerzbank’s suspicious transaction report had no reference to the German legal area. That is why the FIU did not forward this to the local authorities any faster. “What alarmed me about the report is the presentation of the facts by Commerzbank,” she said. This refers to the brief report that the bank added to the list of nearly 350 suspicious payments. In this and in the transfers listed by the Frankfurt money house, a relationship with Germany was clearly recognizable, Bäumler-Hösl made clear. With the fact that the report did not contain any reference to Germany, the FIU justified the fact that it had only informed the local authorities of this information more than a year and a half later. “All the reasons given by the Federal Ministry of Finance as to why the FIU did not initially have to pass on the suspicious transaction report have literally collapsed,” commented Florian Toncar (FDP) on the statement by the chief public prosecutor.

Wirecard suspicious activity report on a silver platter

Matthias Hauer (CDU / CSU) had already disagreed with the presentation of the FIU representative before the chief public prosecutor’s statement: “In my opinion, the silver platter is not enough, it must be made of gold.” Other experts had also classified the suspicious activity report from Commerzbank in the run-up to today’s testimony as a “silver platter” on which the bank had served the FIU with its information. The third witness in the Wirecard investigative committee, Rolf Bösinger, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Finance, countered the accusation that he had withheld information from parliament at an earlier point in time: “These accusations are untenable. I have neither withheld information nor do I have it There is nothing to hide or to conceal. We have informed the German Bundestag and the MPs comprehensively, “he said.

Accusation of “concealment”

These statements did not make an impression on every committee member. For Lisa Paus (Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen) they were “not credible”, Hans Michelbach (CDU / CSU) spoke of “veiling” by the ministry even after Bösinger had been questioned for several hours. BR research had previously reported on internal mail correspondence of the FIU, according to which Bösinger is said to have influenced a dossier of the FIU accordingly. This was drawn up by the authority on the occasion of a special meeting of the finance committee on August 31, 2020. The dossier was an internal preparatory document, stressed Bösinger in front of the members of the committee of inquiry. They will now focus on completing their final reports after months of work. Bundestag President Wolfgang Schäuble will probably receive a thick pile of papers at the end of this month.

Social network icon Facebook. Photo: AFP/VNA This is the first antitrust investigation that European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager has launched against the world’s number one social media provider and the latest she has launched into an American “tech giant”. Ms. Vestager had previously forced Alphabet – Google’s parent company to pay a fine of 8 billion euros (about 9.7 billion USD) and is conducting a similar investigation to Amazon and Apple. During the Facebook investigation, Ms. Vestager said she would review Facebook’s huge data warehouse collected from 7 million companies that have participated in advertising on this social network. The European Commission (EC) and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) are investigating the possibility of Facebook exploiting its dominant position in the social network or digital advertising by collecting collects and uses data, and examines Facebook’s “distortion” of the advertising market through service classification. Ms. Vestager stressed that in today’s digital economy, data should not be used in ways that undermine competition. This tech giant may have to change its business model with large fines. Reacting to the EU and UK’s decision, Facebook said it will fully cooperate with the authorities of both sides to demonstrate that Facebook’s integrated “Marketplace” and dating platform provides all people with more choices and all operate in a highly competitive environment. In the role of “gatekeeper”, Facebook as well as other social networking platforms have collected a large amount of personal private information of users based on privacy terms to develop an integrated platform. Marketplace aims to increase competitive advantage over competitors. In the past, the UK has rarely conducted independent antitrust investigations into US tech giants. Since withdrawing from the EU, the UK’s antitrust division has become an independent global regulator. Andrea Coscelli, CEO of the CMA, has pledged to tackle companies like Google and Facebook with a series of antitrust lawsuits, and said he is open to working alongside colleagues in Brussels.

The move comes after the attack on the US oil and gas shipping company Colonial Pipeline and the growing damage caused by cybercriminals. The US raised the level of investigation into the crime of extortion hackers to the level of ‘terrorists’. Photo: REUTERS In an internal guideline document sent to law offices across the United States on June 3, the US Department of Justice directed that investigations into ransomware should be coordinated with the central government, specifically: A new task force was established in Washington. “This will be a specialized process to ensure we can track all cases of extortion hackers regardless of where they happen in the US, so we can capture the connection between subjects and proceed to break the whole link,” said Deputy Attorney General John Carlin. Previously, in May, the largest US oil pipeline system, the Colonial Pipeline, was crippled by hackers. Colonial Pipeline has decided to pay hackers who have compromised their systems nearly $5 million to regain access. According to the Reuters , the DOJ’s guidance document specifically mentions the Colonial attack as an example of “the growing threat posed by cybercriminals and digital ransomware to the nation.” . “To ensure we can uncover connections between incidents and investigations across the country and globally, and to paint a big picture of national security and economic threats, The economy we face, we must strengthen and focus our internal monitoring,” the guidance document states. Reuters Citing US officials, the decision to include ransomware attacks in a special process by the Department of Justice shows that the issue is being prioritized. “We’ve used this model in the past for counterterrorism, but never with ransomware,” said Carlin, adding that the process typically applies to cases involving direct national security. In practice, this means that investigators at US attorneys’ offices dealing with ransomware cases will have to share both up-to-date case details and technical information with officials in Washington. The guidelines also require offices to review and report other investigations related to the large-scale cybercrime ecology. According to the guidelines, the list of investigations currently required to be reported to the central government includes: anti-virus services, illegal online forums or marketplaces, cryptocurrency exchanges, cybercriminal server services, botnets, and online money laundering services. “We would like to emphasize that prosecutors and criminal investigators need to report and conduct monitoring of cryptocurrency exchanges, illegal online forums or marketplaces for trading hacking tools. , as well as tracking botnets that serve a variety of purposes,” said Carlin. According to Mark Califano, a former US attorney and cybercrime expert, raising the level of investigation could allow the US Justice Department to “deploy resources more effectively” and “identify common exploits” variables” used by cybercriminals.

Wuhan Institute of Virology – which is hypothesized to be the source of Covid-19 infection. (Source: Reuters) According to a report published on 30/3, a joint investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) and China conducted on the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing acute respiratory infections (Covid- 19) concluded that it was “extremely unlikely” that the virus had escaped a laboratory in the central Chinese city of Wuhan. The origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is still questionable The report concludes that the virus is most likely transmitted to humans from an unknown animal, while contradicting the theory made by former US President Donald Trump that the Chinese lab may be the birthplace. virus. While China praised the report, 14 countries including Japan, the US, Australia, the UK, Canada and South Korea have expressed “common concern” about the study and claim that the investigation has was “delayed a long time and lacked access to complete data and originals”, and called for “a fast, efficient, transparent, science-based and independent process” to produce international assessments in case of future outbreaks. WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus said: “All theories are still being discussed. Although the team has concluded that the laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, it requires requiring further investigation, it is likely that additional missions including many experts will have to be deployed. According to WHO Director-General, the inspection team should have access to full data including biological samples from at least September 2019. He asserted that this report is a very important beginning and not the end. “We have not found the origin of the virus yet, and must continue to follow the science without missing any details”, Mr. Tedros Ghebreyesus stressed. While the majority of the report focuses on molecular studies, viral evolution, and potentially host animals, the report on potential laboratory leaks does. Very sketchy presentation. Although the host origin of SARS-CoV-2 is widely recognized, some scientists still maintain the view that this virus may have been collected and stored in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, despite the fact that Chinese scientists have rejected this claim. Viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 were reported to have been found in bats and pangolins, but an intermediate host for transmission to humans has yet to be identified. This report is based on a study conducted by an international team of experts that mink and cats, which are known to be susceptible animals, may be one of the potential hosts. Need more information The Trump administration once hypothesized that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could have come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and claimed that some researchers there had already had Covid-19-like symptoms in the fall. year 2019. However, the team said they found no evidence to support this claim during a January-February 2021 field trip to Wuhan City to investigate the source of the virus. The Chinese authorities have stated that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could have been introduced into the country through imported frozen food. Such transmission is possible but cannot be verified as imported frozen products are not considered a potential path of infection during early spread, the team report said. viruses and there were no tests for them at the time. Matthew Kavanagh, a researcher at Georgetown University, said the report said more in-depth information about the origin of the virus, but more information is needed. “Obviously, the Chinese government does not provide all the necessary data, and until they do this, the conclusions will be very difficult,” said researcher Matthew Kavanagh. The reporting team included experts from many different countries and officials from WHO, World Veterinary Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The team, after being quarantined for two weeks in Wuhan in mid-January 2021, inspected the research institute and other places believed to be related to the virus such as seafood markets. They also had discussions with Chinese experts. Representatives of the WHO and China expert group at a joint press conference in Wuhan on February 9. (Source: Reuters) “Opposite” views Jesse Bloom, an expert on evolutionary biology at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle (USA), said he does not believe that a lab leak is unlikely. The expert agrees that the virus naturally evolved to spread to humans, but he did not see any explanation in the report disproving the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could catch. source from a laboratory. Meanwhile, Mr. Peter Daszak, a member of the WHO expert group, a British ecologist in infectious diseases, and the executive director of the Ecological Health Coalition – a disease prevention organization in New York. , has voiced opposition to the flow of comments criticizing the research results and the degree of cooperation of China. Mr. Peter Daszak said that the lab leak hypothesis “has political purposes from the very beginning”. Dr. Daszak added that the WHO team of experts was not prohibited from participating in interviews with scientists who were on the ground during the early stages of the pandemic. Mr. Daszak himself has also been accused of a conflict of interest due to collaborating research on the virus with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which he thinks an infectious disease ecologist should do. “We were in the right place because we knew there was a risk of disease outbreaks. We were working there with this exact team and it happened,” said Dr Daszak. A group of scientists not affiliated with WHO is calling for a new investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. They argue that such an investigation needs to consider the possibility of the virus spreading from a laboratory in Wuhan or infecting people inside it. (synthetic)