The Panama Papers

[Bernanke]

We don't have a thread on this yet do we? It's blowing up everywhere.


Over a year ago, an anonymous source contacted the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and submitted encrypted internal documents from Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm that sells anonymous offshore companies around the world. These shell firms enable their owners to cover up their business dealings, no matter how shady.

In the months that followed, the number of documents continued to grow far beyond the original leak. Ultimately, SZ acquired about 2.6 terabytes of data, making the leak the biggest that journalists had ever worked with. The source wanted neither financial compensation nor anything else in return, apart from a few security measures.

The data provides rare insights into a world that can only exist in the shadows. It proves how a global industry led by major banks, legal firms, and asset management companies secretly manages the estates of the world’s rich and famous: from politicians, Fifa officials, fraudsters and drug smugglers, to celebrities and professional athletes.


In the past 12 months, around 400 journalists from more than 100 media organizations in over 80 countries have taken part in researching the documents. These have included teams from the Guardian and the BBC in England, Le Monde in France, and La Nación in Argentina.


http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/56febff0a1bb8d3c3495adf4/_modules_4_image_url.png

https://panamapapers.icij.org
https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/
http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/series/panama-papers
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35934836

[Bernanke]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/apr/03/icelands-prime-minister-walks-out-of-interview-over-tax-haven-question-video

:D

It's interesting how his attitude that the journalists aren't playing ball by asking such questions is so visible.

[niko_cee]

One order of polonium infused tea is on its way.

[Spikey M]

I don't get the fuss about this. Rich fuckers are being dodgey to avoid paying tax? Well, yes...

[Bernanke]

I don't get the fuss about this. Rich fuckers are being dodgey to avoid paying tax? Well, yes...

Some of the stories (Poroshenko for example) have some serious weight though, and I'm not sure how much of the leak has been processed.


"At the high point of the war (when Russia intervened directly & massively) Poroshenko sent out an e-mail about the founding of a letterbox corporation"


On September 1, 2014, Poroshenko announced Russia has openly attacked Ukraine. On the same day he provided Mossack Fonseca with a copy of his utility bill to prove his home address.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's one of those things where I can read all the reports but not make head or tail of what's actually going on.

[Spikey M]

Some of the stories (Poroshenko for example) have some serious weight though, and I'm not sure how much of the leak has been processed.

Oh, I'm sure there's some absolute shit housery going on, I'm just surprised at the surprise.

[Angelsaint]

Isn't poroshenko enemy of putin?

Something in these stories is missing. Like someone is trying to erase their involvement.

[Spikey M]

By making all the papers public? Yeah. That'll do it.

[Lewis]

I like the wording of 'politicians, Fifa officials, fraudsters and drug smugglers, to celebrities and professional athletes'. Yes, FIFA officials are that bad.

[Henry]

Criminal prosecutions followed by a global tax on capital. :drool:

[Spikey M]

To be fair Fifa officials are politicians, fraudsters, celebrities and former professional athletes.

Atleast a few of them probably dable in drug dealing too.

[Giggles]

I've no idea what's going on. Have they actually released any real info or are they just blowing?

[John]

I've no idea what's going on. Have they actually released any real info or are they just blowing?

Reading the thread helps with knowing what's going on.

This is all very interesting. I remember hearing the name of that law firm before. I'm not sure where or why, but it'll likely have been the first knockings of this. It's unlikely I've heard of a Panamanian firm for other reasons.

[Giggles]

Reading the thread helps with knowing what's going on.

This is all very interesting. I remember hearing the name of that law firm before. I'm not sure where or why, but it'll likely have been the first knockings of this. It's unlikely I've heard of a Panamanian firm for other reasons.

Nobody has mentioned anything specific so if they've released nothing then what exactly is their aim? Are they looking to be paid off?

[niko_cee]

Daniel Fonseca.

[John]

Nobody has mentioned anything specific so if they've released nothing then what exactly is their aim? Are they looking to be paid off?

The opening post says both that they've released a shitload of data and that they're not looking for anything in return.

[Giggles]

Well it can't be anything of interest if nobody has seen fit to mention specifics.

[Yevrah]

Why does Putin need to hide money?

[Henry]

Why does Putin need to hide money?

To avoid sanctions?

[Byron]

I can't imagine this will be terribly damaging to Putin anyway. Everyone outside of Russia knows he's bent as fuck, a large majority within Russia either idolise him or are too afraid to say anything and he'll continue lolling his way through life.

[John]

Well it can't be anything of interest if nobody has seen fit to mention specifics.

What? It shows exactly how corrupt wankers are going about hiding assets all over the place, who's doing it, and where they're doing it. It's nothing but specifics, but it's the equivalent of two thousand Wikileaks worth of data.

You're just asking questions that have already been answered here.


I can't imagine this will be terribly damaging to Putin anyway. Everyone outside of Russia knows he's bent as fuck, a large majority within Russia either idolise him or are too afraid to say anything and he'll continue lolling his way through life.

Why bother hiding it, then? He's an openly corrupt nutjob who has opponents murdered, it'll be interesting to see what he's been hiding, even if we never find out why he's been hiding it.

[phonics]

Well it can't be anything of interest if nobody has seen fit to mention specifics.

It's 2.6TB of Client Files. It'll have what they own, where the offshore money goes, who it goes to etc. etc.

[Spikey M]

People like Putin always make a half arsed atempt at hiding stuff. He knows the majority of Russians will eat his shit up anyway.

[Amigo]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/apr/03/icelands-prime-minister-walks-out-of-interview-over-tax-haven-question-video

:D

It's interesting how his attitude that the journalists aren't playing ball by asking such questions is so visible.

:face:

So fucking cringeworthy.

[GS]

Surely this will only prove that dodgy people are dodgy, particularly in the genuinely non-democratic countries where you a) don't have elections or b) are still getting away with fixing them. It would be significantly more interesting if it implicated someone who had held high office in a 'genuine' democracy e.g. here, or America. But finding out that Putin is laundering money? It's not as if that is a) going to surprise anyone or b) anything of consequence is going to come of it.

[phonics]

Someone mentioned that there just so happens not to be a single U.S. citizen in the files.

[Giggles]

It's 2.6TB of Client Files. It'll have what they own, where the offshore money goes, who it goes to etc. etc.

But does it prove anything noteworthy or just that rich people try avoid tax (shock)?

I'm not going to sit down and go through 2.6TB of data myself.

[Spoonsky]

I don't quite understand this but the Panama Papers has got to be the coolest name for a current event in some time. It's like something out of an Alex Rider book (did you guys read those?).

[Amigo]

I think our government might collapse due to this leak, so there's that.

[GS]

If the most relevant examples to a UK audience are that Putin is laundering money through his associates and a series of offshore companies, then it hardly ranks as SHOCK or GREAT JOURNALISM (in the context of being interesting to a UK audience).

Similarly, if the most relevant European example is the Prime Minister of Iceland - a small country in the middle of the Atlantic - then it's hardly groundbreaking. They're not in the EU either, so it's not like it's going to be an event of interest outside Iceland even if the government was to collapse. And if it did collapse, why would anybody outside Iceland care?

In short, this isn't Watergate. Although it will no doubt be treated as such by the media for a few days whilst we have it confirmed that, yes, certain African or eastern European heads of state may, in fact, be engaged in some shady practices.

[Spoonsky]

I think our government might collapse due to this leak, so there's that.

The PM looks like your father (or pervert uncle).

[Raoul Duke]

It's a concerted effort by the US to oust Putin. They've cracked down on FIFA (Russia were awarded the WC), the doping scandal in athletics and now this (a personal attack prior to elections).

Obviously there'll be a shitload of collateral damage from other assorted shitmunchers which is all gravy, but Vlad is the real target.

[Pen]

Apparently Messi's name is also on that list. Wonder what kind of sanctions he'll be facing (if any) due to this and the tax evasion case against him and his father.

[Magic]

Putin isn't as revered in Russia as one might initially think.

[Magic]

Putin isn't as revered in Russia as one might initially think.

So it turns out he has over 70% approval at the moment, though that might be propaganda. Lol.

[Spoonsky]

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/4dcrxq/pretty_much_all_of_iceland_demanding_pms/

Where were you, Amigo?

[mugbull]

So it turns out he has over 70% approval at the moment, though that might be propaganda. Lol.

What do you mean by "that might be propaganda"?

[Kikó]

Are you must deliberately avoiding the Dave senior involvement?


If the most relevant examples to a UK audience are that Putin is laundering money through his associates and a series of offshore companies, then it hardly ranks as SHOCK or GREAT JOURNALISM (in the context of being interesting to a UK audience).

Similarly, if the most relevant European example is the Prime Minister of Iceland - a small country in the middle of the Atlantic - then it's hardly groundbreaking. They're not in the EU either, so it's not like it's going to be an event of interest outside Iceland even if the government was to collapse. And if it did collapse, why would anybody outside Iceland care?

In short, this isn't Watergate. Although it will no doubt be treated as such by the media for a few days whilst we have it confirmed that, yes, certain African or eastern European heads of state may, in fact, be engaged in some shady practices.

[Magic]

What do you mean by "that might be propaganda"?

They've probably polled the right people, is what I meant.

[Jimmy Floyd]

As has been pointed out, people can't slate Dave for things via his dad if attacks on Red Ted via Ralph Miliband were deemed to be beyond the pale.

[Davgooner]

Someone mentioned that there just so happens not to be a single U.S. citizen in the files.

Aye, although there was some stuff that came out last week regarding large-scale money-laundering in Europe and Middle East, and fuckery involving Haliburton in Iraq that some knowledgeable people reckon could land a few high profiles in big shit, so it's not all bad.

Cheney in particular. :drool:

[Byron]

Platini involved as well. Quelle fucking surprise.

[randomlegend]

Putin isn't as revered in Russia as one might initially think.

Did you just pull this out of your arse and then decide to find out if it was true or not? :D

[Jimmy Floyd]

Platini involved as well. Quelle fucking surprise.

I think you'll find he's a proper football man.

[Magic]

Did you just pull this out of your arse and then decide to find out if it was true or not? :D

No I just remember reading a few articles around the time he was bumping off his political opposition.

[Amigo]

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/4dcrxq/pretty_much_all_of_iceland_demanding_pms/

Where were you, Amigo?
This is probably the first and only political protest I will ever attend.

My personal highlight: the person holding the communist flag bumping into someone while taking a selfie.

[Angelsaint]

" communist flag "?

[John Arne]

" communist flag "?

https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20150919_LDP010_0.jpg

[Lewis]

Jeremy Corbyn threatening to Brezhnev Doctrine the British dependencies made me lol. I'm sure they would happily tell him where to go.

[Angelsaint]

https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20150919_LDP010_0.jpg
I expected a Che Guevara shirt but is that the "official" communist flag?

[Henry]

How do you propose that they are made to enforce the law?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Fair play to Corbyn, I didn't have him down as wanting to reconquer the Empire but it's a noble aim.

[Amigo]

" communist flag "?

I dunno. It sort of looked like the Soviet flag but it also had other insignia on it.

[Smiffy]

.....

[phonics]

This is good on why there's no Americans. http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/this_is_much_worse_than_the_panama_papers_how_amer ica_became_a_world_leader_in_tax_avoidance/

It's easier to hide your money in Delaware.

[Amigo]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-elections-prime-minister-asks-president-to-dissolve-parliament-amid-panama-papers-a6969601.html

This is so mental.

[Pepe]

Iceland. :drool:

[GS]

Are you must deliberately avoiding the Dave senior involvement?

Unless it's Dave himself, it's completely irrelevant. Not only did his father pass away six years ago, the investments were initially made in 1982.

There's plenty to legitimately attack the Tories, and Cameron personally, for, but it would be beyond the pale to attack Cameron because of his father's business decisions - decisions that were a) completely legal at the time and b) were made almost two years before he would even have sat his fucking A Levels.


Jeremy Corbyn threatening to Brezhnev Doctrine the British dependencies made me lol. I'm sure they would happily tell him where to go.

He literally doesn't give a fuck about self determination, does he?


How do you propose that they are made to enforce the law?

Are you seriously suggesting that it would be acceptable for the United Kingdom to unilaterally impose 'direct rule' on one of its overseas territories because it doesn't like their legal system?

[Henry]

Are you seriously suggesting that it would be acceptable for the United Kingdom to unilaterally impose 'direct rule' on one of its overseas territories because it doesn't like their legal system?

I don't know enough about them, their legal systems and their relationship to the UK's to say much about that. But if they're under UK law (and under military protection etc.) and are in violation of same, then something presumably should be done by someone.

[niko_cee]

I'm not sure what you can really do to get heavy handed, other than impose proper compliance style shit and deny access to whatever for non-compliance. Invade? There is always going to be somewhere to turn a blind eye. Every country has its tax havens.

I look forward to the Sark papers. They would be amazing. So much shit has gone down through there over the years.

[GS]

I don't know enough about them, their legal systems and their relationship to the UK's to say much about that. But if they're under UK law (and under military protection etc.) and are in violation of same, then something presumably should be done by someone.

I assume that as overseas territories they have their own legal system, whereas we'd be responsible for defence and foreign policy. That's the general arrangement, I believe. In those circumstances, I ask again, who in the fuck thinks that imposing direct rule on an overseas territory because you don't like their legal system is a viable strategy? Let alone one which is actually articulated - in public - by a leader of a major political party?

Even in the circumstances you outline, something would not constitute direct violation of the population's rights to self-determination and self-governance simply because the Mother Country has decided to throw the shoulder about.

Do you advocate a return to imperialism and a renouncement of the right of self-determination? Because that's what you are appear to be intimating.

[Henry]

I don't appear to be doing anything of the sort. I asked what Lewis would do, and then said that I think something should be done but that I didn't know enough to say what that was. Stop trying to make this about Corbyn.

[GS]

The issue in hand pertains to 'doing something' in respect of a legal system over which we, rightly, should exercise no direct control. This isn't about Corbyn - however, he has made a quite ridiculous suggestion for remedying it.

I don't see a particular problem with tax havens, as such. They're shit, but if a country wishes to use its legal system for a low tax, or indeed no tax, environment then that is not our business. Similarly, if they want to impose no regulation on their firms then that is not our business either. It is not our prerogative to tell other countries how we want them to govern themselves, irrespective of whether they are overseas dependencies or not.

You could suggest sticking huge taxes on any money remitted to the UK, but then all you're going to do is encourage people to legally avoid such schemes.

[Lewis]

I don't think anything should be done about them.

[GS]

I don't think anything should be done about them.

I agree. I was merely pre-empting the leftist response that we should TAX THE RICH whenever they try and bring the money back into the UK.

[Henry]

I'm of the view that people shouldn't be able to dodge tax, and that jurisdictions which facilitate that need to be made to stop doing so - whether that's by the UK, or by international institutions. I don't think that's a particularly left-wing view.

This isn't even just about tax dodging in any event, but about all manner of money laundering, fraud and corruption.

[Kikó]

It's interesting to see the fallout in the banking sector as they desperately analyse the Panama papers and determine if anyone mentioned is a client. Massive compliance risk.

[GS]

I don't think it's acceptable to impinge the sovereignty of another country simply because you don't like their taxation or legal systems. If they want a low or no tax environment, or low or no regulation, that is entirely up to them. I do not see why we continually set ourselves up as the sole arbiters of what is and isn't acceptable in this regard.

[Raoul Duke]

It's interesting to see the fallout in the banking sector as they desperately analyse the Panama papers and determine if anyone mentioned is a client. Massive compliance risk.

HSBC have been balls deep in it, of course.

[Henry]

I don't think it's acceptable to impinge the sovereignty of another country simply because you don't like their taxation or legal systems

Not because you "don't like it". You grow fond of weasel words. Because it facilitates tax dodging and money laundering. These things are in many cases illegal.

And it doesn't really require impingement on sovereignty. The Cayman Islands can have any tax regime they like. If multinationals are subject to penalties in the major economies for availing of it, then it will be of little use to them.

You aren't remotely this precious about sovereignty when it suits you not to be, mind.

[leedsrevolution]

Iceland. :drool:

Your posts are so fucking shit. Iceland :drool:. Fuck off. :wanker:

[GS]

Not because you "don't like it". You grow fond of weasel words. Because it facilitates tax dodging and money laundering.

And it doesn't really require impingement on sovereignty. The Cayman Islands can have any tax regime they like. If multinationals are subject to penalties in the major economies for availing of it, then it will be of little use to them.

You aren't remotely this precious about sovereignty when it suits you not to be, mind.


You could suggest sticking huge taxes on any money remitted to the UK, but then all you're going to do is encourage people to legally avoid such schemes.

It's like night following day where the left are concerned on this. Tax them, penalise them, make them PAY THEIR WAY.

On the issue of sovereignty, I've inclined more towards a view that sovereignty should not be undermined by external parties - especially where such pressure and/or intervention is being applied from the morally righteous high ground as you tend to do.

[Henry]

It's like night following day where the left are concerned on this. Tax them, penalise them, make them PAY THEIR WAY.

I don't see why that ought to be controversial, unless you're joining the "taxation is theft" brigade, which wouldn't surprise me at this point. Yes, people should pay their taxes and be punished when they do illegal things. This isn't a case of other countries attracting investment through competitive rates - it's money that should be taxed in one jurisdiction being funneled through others to avoid paying. At the less dodgy end of the scale.


On the issue of sovereignty, I've inclined more towards a view that sovereignty should not be undermined by external parties - especially where such pressure and/or intervention is being applied from the morally righteous high ground as you tend to do.

Presumably then, not wanting to take the high ground against Iran or North Korea, you want to drop all sanctions on them. Not to mention adopting an isolationist military stance.

[Boydy]

Imagine thinking that people living in and making money in a country should pay taxes to that country. FUCKING COMMUNISTS.

[Giggles]

I'm all for it. If the systems are there and a big company can afford it then make hay. If I had enough money to be able to avoid tax I would too.

[GS]

I don't see why that ought to be controversial, unless you're joining the "taxation is theft" brigade, which wouldn't surprise me at this point. Yes, people should pay their taxes.

Presumably then, not wanting to take the high ground against Iran or North Korea, you want to drop all sanctions on them. Not to mention adopting an isolationist military stance.

Taxation is not theft, but nor should it be seen as a bottomless pit of wealth where the rich and big business should be repeatedly tapped for more and more money. Tax avoidance is not illegal, and international company structures stretching across international boundaries to avoid it are the consequence you pay for operating as part of a global market. The alternative is protectionist approach, at which point you might as well reinstate the corn laws and close the country down.

Tax havens are not a threat to global security in the manner that a nuclear-armed North Korea or Iran would be. These countries have volatile command structures and a consistently bellicose rhetoric which does not lend itself to global confidence in their possessing a unilateral nuclear 'deterrent'. As such, it is not 'impinging' their sovereignty to ensure they don't get the bomb - rather it is a necessary step to prevent future escalation. It is bad enough that India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, where serious questions exist (particularly in the latter case) regarding command structures for launching a strike.

I would, however, advocate a fairly isolationist military stance unless it is coupled with a clear strategy post-intervention. Even them, such interventions should be very rare. We certainly should not be going and recognising 'opposition councils' as the representatives of the people over the existing government because we've decided we don't like them anymore.

As I said, I've inclined more towards a view that sovereignty should not be undermined. There are, however, certain circumstances where it is necessary e.g. preventing nuclear proliferation. Tax havens are not a global threat to security, and therefore the comparison is clearly invalid. You know this too, on account of not being thick.

[Henry]

Taxation is not theft, but nor should it be seen as a bottomless pit of wealth where the rich and big business should be repeatedly tapped for more and more money. Tax avoidance is not illegal, and international company structures stretching across international boundaries to avoid it are the consequence you pay for operating as part of a global market. The alternative is protectionist approach, at which point you might as well reinstate the corn laws and close the country down.

Because clearly the only two options are unregulated corporate dystopia or return to feudalism. :rolleyes:

The Panama Papers, which we're discussing, have led to all sorts of criminal investigations already in numerous countries. If we're talking about them, then we are talking about things that are illegal.


Tax havens are not a threat to global security in the manner that a nuclear-armed North Korea or Iran would be. These countries have volatile command structures and a consistently bellicose rhetoric which does not lend itself to global confidence in their possessing a unilateral nuclear 'deterrent'. As such, it is not 'impinging' their sovereignty to ensure they don't get the bomb - rather it is a necessary step to prevent future escalation. It is bad enough that India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, where serious questions exist (particularly in the latter case) regarding who would ultimately be able to launch a nuclear strike.

I would, however, advocate a fairly isolationist military stance unless it is coupled with a clear strategy post-intervention.

As I said, I've inclined more towards a view that sovereignty should not be undermined. There are, however, certain circumstances where it is necessary e.g. preventing nuclear proliferation. Tax havens are not a global threat to security, and therefore the comparison is clearly invalid. You know this too, on account of not being thick.

So like I said, you have a less precious view of sovereignty when it suits you.

This is boring. You're not really interested in a sensible conversation, just in bashing your strawman LEFT.

[GS]

Because clearly the only two options are unregulated corporate dystopia or return to feudalism. :rolleyes:

The Panama Papers, which we're discussing, have led to all sorts of criminal investigations already in numerous countries. If we're talking about them, then we are talking about things that are illegal.

So like I said, you have a less precious view of sovereignty when it suits you.

This is boring. You're not really interested in a sensible conversation, just in bashing your strawman LEFT.

I'm not particularly interested in what happens to the PM of Iceland or to some of Putin's associates as it has no direct relevance to this country. As I've repeatedly outlined with respect to the taxation arguments we'd had previously, you appear to consider rich people and big business as wealth to be tapped to increase government spending. This is wrong. A global market exists, and that requires concessions. This is one of them. You may not like it, but huge tax burdens on remittances will get you nowhere as money will simply not be remitted or alternative mechanisms will be found for bringing it into the country. The alternative middle-way is to implement a taxation level which discourages legitimate avoidance.

On the latter subject, yes I have a less precious view of sovereignty where it entails a major threat to global security and in some instances where it entails a major threat to regional security. Are you incapable of understanding the difference between this and an economic or legal system implemented in a sovereign country? One cannot seriously suggest that the same principles of 'we've no right to intervene' apply to the Cayman Islands and an Iran actively seeking the bomb. To do so implies the same 'black or white' argument which you often, and wrongly, accuse others of engaging in.

[Boydy]

I'm all for it. If the systems are there and a big company can afford it then make hay. If I had enough money to be able to avoid tax I would too.

It's just the politics of tax avoidance envy.

[Lewis]

The Guardian lead with 'DAVID CAMERON LEFT DANGEROUSLY EXPOSED'. When will they realise?

[Angelsaint]

Something in these stories is missing. Like someone is trying to erase their involvement.
I called it!

Why was only me that noticed the obvious?
Am I some kind of genius?
German paper says that it is not over and this is just the first part.

So using my detective skills, European and American were left out. Why?

[phonics]

I called it!

Why was only me that noticed the obvious?
Am I some kind of genius?
German paper says that it is not over and this is just the first part.

So using my detective skills, European and American were left out. Why?

I linked why there are no Americans on there. There are loads of Europeans on there.

You're an idiot.

[Angelsaint]

I linked why there are no Americans on there. There are loads of Europeans on there.

You're an idiot.
I see the confusion, I meant big fish EU and American.
Iceland and small fish obviously don't count.

But I understand your rage as I am right again. It's a bit annoying.

[phonics]

It's almost like this is one company and there's a rather large one with it's headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland not Panama that they're using.

[Magic]

I'd lol if the Russians retaliated and somehow leaked a load of shit that fucked America up in terms of hiding tax etc.

[Davgooner]

Maybe we should have publicly-funded elections so these shitehawks can't buy our politicians to turn a blind eye to this sort of shit?

[ItalAussie]

Tax avoidance annoys me. It's like we've all accepted that corporations don't actually have to pay proper tax anymore, because there's nothing we can do to make them. I just can't believe that's true.

I'm not suggesting we gouge them, but corporations should have to pay a reasonable amount when compared to, say, individual income taxes. If they want to do business in your country, find a way to tax them on turnover due to transactions in which one or both parties are residents within that country, or something similar. I'm not suggesting that this is the particular best way to make them pay a reasonable amount (it's a hypothetical example), but there has to be some way to stop people from playing games.

The major Australian airline paid about $12 total tax last year, and a lot of people were justifiably angry about this. But everyone shrugs their shoulders and says that there's nothing that can be done, at least without rewriting the entire tax code. To me, that just says that the tax code is broken to begin with (and that there are interests with financial clout who'd like to keep it that way).

[Spoonsky]

In about ten years an Oscar-winning, Spotlight-esque film will be made about this. It will be called... THE PANAMA PAPERS. You just can't improve on that.

[Giggles]

Tax avoidance annoys me. It's like we've all accepted that corporations don't actually have to pay proper tax anymore, because there's nothing we can do to make them. I just can't believe that's true.

I'm not suggesting we gouge them, but corporations should have to pay a reasonable amount when compared to, say, individual income taxes. If they want to do business in your country, find a way to tax them on turnover due to transactions in which one or both parties are residents within that country, or something similar. I'm not suggesting that this is the particular best way to make them pay a reasonable amount (it's a hypothetical example), but there has to be some way to stop people from playing games.

The major Australian airline paid about $12 total tax last year, and a lot of people were justifiably angry about this. But everyone shrugs their shoulders and says that there's nothing that can be done, at least without rewriting the entire tax code. To me, that just says that the tax code is broken to begin with (and that there are interests with financial clout who'd like to keep it that way).

I'm more than happy for the big ones to pay very little or none here because of jobs.

[Raoul Duke]

But then, as I think Elth said the other day, you only end up with a race-to-the-bottom. Someone can always undercut you and then a bigger country can just subsidise you out of the game.

In this case it's not really much to do with 'corporations' anyway. This is simply rich individuals hiding money from being taxed. Why should I pay tax if they don't?

[Davgooner]

I'm more than happy for the big ones to pay very little or none here because of jobs.

WEALTH CREATORS.

:sick:

[Giggles]

WEALTH CREATORS.

:sick:

People working > people not working. We don't have much industry so we rely on the yanks to set up shop here. The technical field would be like Northern Ireland without them.

They can avoid all the tax they like.

[Davgooner]

Not sustainable for very long though.

[Giggles]

Not sustainable for very long though.

It's worked for a fair while now. Even in the crash HP and IBM were the only two that seriously scaled down.
It means people in at least one field can stay here and earn a good wage and we can continue to export our teachers to the UK, business majors to Canada, and school dropouts to Australia.

[Henry]

The game is nearly up for Ireland in terms of its corporate tax regime. They are facing competition for low rates elsewhere and at some point the Americans will put a stop to their companies benefitting from it and the EU will look to either harmonise rates or share the revenues.

[Pepe]

Ah yes, god bless corporations and their benevolence.

[GS]

Tax avoidance annoys me. It's like we've all accepted that corporations don't actually have to pay proper tax anymore, because there's nothing we can do to make them. I just can't believe that's true.

I'm not suggesting we gouge them, but corporations should have to pay a reasonable amount when compared to, say, individual income taxes. If they want to do business in your country, find a way to tax them on turnover due to transactions in which one or both parties are residents within that country, or something similar. I'm not suggesting that this is the particular best way to make them pay a reasonable amount (it's a hypothetical example), but there has to be some way to stop people from playing games.

The major Australian airline paid about $12 total tax last year, and a lot of people were justifiably angry about this. But everyone shrugs their shoulders and says that there's nothing that can be done, at least without rewriting the entire tax code. To me, that just says that the tax code is broken to begin with (and that there are interests with financial clout who'd like to keep it that way).

This comes back to the discussion we had previously, whereby the state seeks to pass on the responsibility of 'looking after' people to the private sector insofar as it can. The Irish example has been mentioned above, and the posts I made on it at the time remain relevant. Ireland is the biggest benefactor of FDI in the EU, and a significant number of those companies have cited the advantageous tax regime as a reason for that investment. It brings jobs and, yes, it creates 'wealth'.

Also, an important point to note is that the corporation itself will be contributing significantly to the exchequer prior to corporation tax being considered e.g. it will pay VAT, employer NIC, with knock-on contributions where its employees contribute with income tax on their salary (wholly paid by the company with a significant positive contribution to the state rather than a significant negative contribution where that individual is unemployed), employee NIC, VAT on goods they subsequently buy, stamp duty on houses they can now afford to get a mortgage on etc. etc.

Take a manufacturing company with significant transport costs. You're paying for certificates, the right to run your business, to register it, rates on your properties, you're buying huge amounts of fuel (and getting taxed on it), you're potentially paying tariffs to import certain goods. You're making a significant contribution to the exchequer, directly and indirectly, prior to corporation tax.

I'm not saying that this means companies should not then pay corporation tax. However, what I am saying is that we need to stop saying that they're paying no tax and are therefore evil because it's simply not correct and betrays a lack of understanding of how businesses, particularly small ones, operate and contribute away from the headline figures which generate media coverage.


But then, as I think Elth said the other day, you only end up with a race-to-the-bottom. Someone can always undercut you and then a bigger country can just subsidise you out of the game.

In this case it's not really much to do with 'corporations' anyway. This is simply rich individuals hiding money from being taxed. Why should I pay tax if they don't?

A race to the bottom is inevitable in this regard. Ultimately, every country is competing with each other for investment, whether that be FDI or ensuring that national companies reinvest within the jurisdiction. It's every sovereign country's prerogative to present an advantageous 'package' to investors to secure that investment so that it benefits their citizens. An internationalist outlook on this is idealism gone mad, as not a single other government will give a shit. Do you think any government would be reelected if they suggested that they could have brought in 30,000 jobs but decided that this was a 'race to the bottom' and they didn't want to undercut their national 'competitors'? They'd be chucked out of office for being shite, and rightly so.


The game is nearly up for Ireland in terms of its corporate tax regime. They are facing competition for low rates elsewhere and at some point the Americans will put a stop to their companies benefitting from it and the EU will look to either harmonise rates or share the revenues.

Ireland are in a good position as I've previously outlined, with respect to a 'bridge' into Europe, excellent transport links via air and sea, a skilled English-speaking workforce and a city with the infrastructure to cope. They have competition for low rates, yes, but it's from countries without most, if not all, of these advantages. The chief threat is from the European Union, which has routinely expressed 'concern' over Irish tax rates because it pisses off the French and the Germans. One imagines they would argue that an advantageous tax regime is the equivalent of 'state aid', and therefore illegal, but it would be rigorously argued against in the European courts that this wasn't the case.

In short, your analysis would appear to be extremely premature. It could take years before there's a resolution, and even then there's simply no guarantee that the EU would be able to 'win' any legal battle with the Irish over their tax rates. No doubt this will aggrieve them and their incessant need to tell everybody what to do, but attempting to control a sovereign country's entirely legal tax regime would be a very serious step to take. Perhaps we should just invade so that we can do something.

[ItalAussie]

This comes back to the discussion we had previously, whereby the state seeks to pass on the responsibility of 'looking after' people to the private sector insofar as it can. The Irish example has been mentioned above, and the posts I made on it at the time remain relevant. Ireland is the biggest benefactor of FDI in the EU, and a significant number of those companies have cited the advantageous tax regime as a reason for that investment. It brings jobs and, yes, it creates 'wealth'.

Also, an important point to note is that the corporation itself will be contributing significantly to the exchequer prior to corporation tax being considered e.g. it will pay VAT, employer NIC, with knock-on contributions where its employees contribute with income tax on their salary (wholly paid by the company with a significant positive contribution to the state rather than a significant negative contribution where that individual is unemployed), employee NIC, VAT on goods they subsequently buy, stamp duty on houses they can now afford to get a mortgage on etc. etc.

Take a manufacturing company with significant transport costs. You're paying for certificates, the right to run your business, to register it, rates on your properties, you're buying huge amounts of fuel (and getting taxed on it), you're potentially paying tariffs to import certain goods. You're making a significant contribution to the exchequer, directly and indirectly, prior to corporation tax.

I'm not saying that this means companies should not then pay corporation tax. However, what I am saying is that we need to stop saying that they're paying no tax and are therefore evil because it's simply not correct and betrays a lack of understanding of how businesses, particularly small ones, operate and contribute away from the headline figures which generate media coverage.
Good. I'm glad they're still contributing, even if it's less than they should be.

Companies are still clearly setting up shell corporations and basing themselves in low-tax regions to avoid paying taxes on their profits (after everything else is taken into account) which the law has designated as being fair. This is totally legal, and I think that is a fault in the system. Paying tax along the way isn't a free pass - I pay sales tax, council tax, property tax, etc., and I still have to pay income tax on what I get once that is all said and done. You can't just rely on "trickle down economics", which never actually works.

I don't know how you'd rewrite the code to ensure that companies pay fair tax on profits made by transactions within a country. But I also don't believe that accepting that the profit from the transaction is actually made in Liechtenstein, Panama or Turks & Caicos is unavoidable. I can't accept that sufficiently motivated legislators couldn't ensure that profits are correctly indexed to where the transaction "really" exists, and that the makers of that profit are taxed accordingly. If a transaction occurs between two parties who are both based in Britain in all but name, it can't be totally beyond the government to notice that it didn't meaningfully take place in Puerto Rico.

I realise that you basically don't believe in corporation tax, but I'm coming at this from the assumption that taxing corporate profits has a place in a society that provides a market. We could quibble over that all day, and never agree. But currently there is a tax on corporate profits, so the law comes down on my side, and I (and most people) consider avoidance to be immoral, even though I know it's not necessarily illegal. But I think the law should be rewritten so that it is illegal, and I don't for a moment believe that it can't be done. Either get rid of the taxes, or write them properly to avoid wankery like this.

[Lewis]

The Dave stuff has gone full idiot. He had a share in whatever his old man set up from 1997 (four years before being elected to anything), sold it in January 2010, paid all of the United Kingdom tax owed, and... What? He's obviously done the now-typical David Cameron thing of making life difficult for himself by initially responding like a sloppy twat who doesn't think people will bother pushing it, but what else could he have actually done other than go back in time and tell himself not to make a bit of money with his old man in case he fancies becoming Prime Minister one day?

Cunts like Tom Watson know it as well, which is why they can only come out with shite like 'he held shares in a fund now linked to tax avoidance' (carefully not making direct accusations), and expecting the word 'offshore' to trigger some sort of link with illegality in the mind of the pleb. Can I buy your nonce book on Amazon, mate? If so, then I'm afraid you're making money out of tax avoidance.

[phonics]

I thought GS' default position on this was pretty dumb but the claim that Corporations pay VAT (which they can claim back) and their employees have to pay taxes (EXACTLY THE FUCKING POINT) so it's okay to shove billions into a bank in the Caymans is a new lol.

[Henry]

The Dave stuff is more damaging because it is a stark reminder of his class background. These tax dodging fucks are his friends and family.

[Lewis]

I think his poshness is taken as a given at this point.

[Henry]

He tries to portray himself as an everyman - "Dave". This damages that, which is why he prevaricated.

[Angelsaint]

Anyone claiming Ireland as s success because of their little or non pay taxes is the reason :facepalm: exists. You do know it's a matter of time before another country offers even less taxes with same or more skilled workers right?
This is simple 1+1 thing, no need to write 500 words to see the obvious.

[Lewis]

He tries to portray himself as an everyman - "Dave". This damages that, which is why he prevaricated.

He's been getting lolled at for that since day one. Nobody cares.

[Henry]

He's been getting lolled at for that since day one. Nobody cares.

Lolled at by political anoraks like you and me, perhaps.

[Lewis]

Every bit of polling ever shows that people see him as posh and 'out of touch', and it doesn't seem to be having much effect (he also consistently out-polls the Conservative Party) when you consider that attacking him for it has been pretty much tested to destruction.

[Lewis]

Ken Livingstone is on Channel 4 news somehow conspiring to make himself the story.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The lol he's posh thing was a proven electoral failure as early as the 2008 Crewe & Nantwich by-election, if memory serves.

[GS]

The Dave stuff is more damaging because it is a stark reminder of his class background. These tax dodging fucks are his friends and family.

Literally nobody apart from the hard left and a Labour party desperately trying to make political gains out of this care that he's posh. He's seen as a strong leader, and a good Prime Minister - which was a big reason why the Tories took a majority at the last election. He's been in charge of the party for eleven years, if people haven't cared up to this point they're hardly going to care now. People really need to stop highlighting his "privileged" upbringing, as if it's somehow a negative. He went to Eton and Oxbridge, yes, but all that it shows is that he's actually intelligent and educated.

[GS]

I thought GS' default position on this was pretty dumb but the claim that Corporations pay VAT (which they can claim back) and their employees have to pay taxes (EXACTLY THE FUCKING POINT) so it's okay to shove billions into a bank in the Caymans is a new lol.

Many corporations are making net contributions to the exchequer on VAT. Having audited plenty of companies in my time, very few are in a position to reclaim VAT from the exchequer.

The point being made is that companies are directly and indirectly providing significant revenues to the exchequer as it is. Where people claim they are "paying no tax", this is a clearly false statement. What they mean is they want them to pay more tax. Again, I refer to the point about employment. If a company creates 100 jobs for 100 unemployed people, that company immediately removes the burden of that person's "living costs" from the state. Combining this saving with the increased revenues the exchequer generates through income tax on that individual means that company (which will have pumped capital in or will have taken out bank loans to fund the thing when it started) has made a significant net contribution to the exchequer on a per person basis.

This is a separate issue to "shoving billions into bank in the Caymans", rather it is a specific point about types of taxation. Yes, the individual is paying income tax but he's only paying it because the company has already taken the full responsibility for his salary. The company is, therefore, already funding the tax payment - albeit indirectly. So where you subscribe to a view that the company should pay corporation tax on top of this, which I don't disagree with, can we at least recognise the reality of the current system before frothing at the mouth on issues which you have, at best, a most rudimentary understanding of.

[GS]

Good. I'm glad they're still contributing, even if it's less than they should be.

Companies are still clearly setting up shell corporations and basing themselves in low-tax regions to avoid paying taxes on their profits (after everything else is taken into account) which the law has designated as being fair. This is totally legal, and I think that is a fault in the system. Paying tax along the way isn't a free pass - I pay sales tax, council tax, property tax, etc., and I still have to pay income tax on what I get once that is all said and done. You can't just rely on "trickle down economics", which never actually works.

I don't know how you'd rewrite the code to ensure that companies pay fair tax on profits made by transactions within a country. But I also don't believe that accepting that the profit from the transaction is actually made in Liechtenstein, Panama or Turks & Caicos is unavoidable. I can't accept that sufficiently motivated legislators couldn't ensure that profits are correctly indexed to where the transaction "really" exists, and that the makers of that profit are taxed accordingly. If a transaction occurs between two parties who are both based in Britain in all but name, it can't be totally beyond the government to notice that it didn't meaningfully take place in Puerto Rico.

I realise that you basically don't believe in corporation tax, but I'm coming at this from the assumption that taxing corporate profits has a place in a society that provides a market. We could quibble over that all day, and never agree. But currently there is a tax on corporate profits, so the law comes down on my side, and I (and most people) consider avoidance to be immoral, even though I know it's not necessarily illegal. But I think the law should be rewritten so that it is illegal, and I don't for a moment believe that it can't be done. Either get rid of the taxes, or write them properly to avoid wankery like this.

Yes, but this comes down to your interpretation of "what should they be contributing". I don't disagree with corporation tax as a principle, regardless of your statement to the contrary. I do, however, think two things. Firstly, corporation tax is an additional taxation burden and should be recognised as such. Unfortunately, it appears to be standard practice to consider corporation tax the only contribution and the accompanying vilification is most unhelpful. Secondly, I do not agree with the view that business should be continually tapped for more money, as if it's somehow a dishonest and 'dirty' industry. Big businesses are wankers, yes, but I simply do not understand the 'end game' of arguments put forward to suggest that they should be raided for more and more tax revenues. Where does that leave you? This isn't 1805, where businesses just have to like it or lump it. Big companies can and will fuck off elsewhere, and take their jobs with them, if they feel they can get a better gig. Idealism is fine, but a realistic and pragmatic assessment indicates that you must work with business because there is no real alternative to job creation.

I also do not disagree that companies which are blatantly circumventing taxation rules shouldn't be given a free pass. However, one must consider the mechanisms by which government, or regulating authorities, can realistically verify that transactions "didn't meaningfully take place in Puerto Rico". As someone who has undertaken investigations and audits, certain transactions can be difficult to get to the bottom of and understand the genuine substance thereof. It is somewhat naive to suggest that "government" should "notice" all such transactions. Even where a potential issue is identified, some of these investigations can take years, and even then you could find there was nothing inherently 'incorrect' within it.

Tax avoidance, as opposed to evasion which should be prosecuted, is inevitable in a global economy and it's one of the concessions you make for operating in that market. A basic, low level of corporation tax is fine as it should be recognised as an additional burden on the company. It helps no-one to make it prohibitive.

[phonics]

Many corporations are making net contributions to the exchequer on VAT. Having audited plenty of companies in my time, very few are in a position to reclaim VAT from the exchequer.

The point being made is that companies are directly and indirectly providing significant revenues to the exchequer as it is. Where people claim they are "paying no tax", this is a clearly false statement. What they mean is they want them to pay more tax. Again, I refer to the point about employment. If a company creates 100 jobs for 100 unemployed people, that company immediately removes the burden of that person's "living costs" from the state. Combining this saving with the increased revenues the exchequer generates through income tax on that individual means that company (which will have pumped capital in or will have taken out bank loans to fund the thing when it started) has made a significant net contribution to the exchequer on a per person basis.

This is a separate issue to "shoving billions into bank in the Caymans", rather it is a specific point about types of taxation. Yes, the individual is paying income tax but he's only paying it because the company has already taken the full responsibility for his salary. The company is, therefore, already funding the tax payment - albeit indirectly. So where you subscribe to a view that the company should pay corporation tax on top of this, which I don't disagree with, can we at least recognise the reality of the current system before frothing at the mouth on issues which you have, at best, a most rudimentary understanding of.

That company are paying those 100 people because paying those people will make them far more than the salary outlay and they will immediately stop paying them that much when they can either find someone to do it for cheaper or they're not making that money back. It's an utterly stupid point.

If you want this no corporation tax dream, you'd have to double/triple salaries at the very minimum.

[GS]

Yes, that's generally what happens when you run a company - you want to maximise revenue and reduce costs. It's a perfectly valid point where one considers the net impact on the exchequer, which is fundamental to the refutation of the argument that they are "not contributing" or "paying no taxes".

You will note that I stated above that a "basic, low level of corporation tax is fine... It helps no-one to make it prohibitive." Making profit is not evil. I sometimes wonder if the problem that the left has with 'aspiration' (to use the generally accepted term) is that when people become rich, they will presumably stop voting for the party that seems to think they've done something wrong in becoming so. Keep them poor and they'll keep voting for Labour.

[phonics]

Why do you keep tying everything back to Labour?

[ItalAussie]

Tax avoidance, as opposed to evasion which should be prosecuted, is inevitable in a global economy and it's one of the concessions you make for operating in that market. A basic, low level of corporation tax is fine as it should be recognised as an additional burden on the company. It helps no-one to make it prohibitive.

That's a fatalistic assertion, and I simply can't believe it. I just don't think anyone with any power has the wherewithal to actually take steps to prevent it from happening.

I'm not suggesting that the solution is "just like the current system, but looking harder", which seems to be how you're interpreting it. They'd probably have to restructure large elements of the way they register transactions, apportion tax, etc. from the ground up. It'd be a huge job which would require significant care and thought, but a job worth doing. This is nothing to do with the tax rates, which is another argument (as I noted before - I'm not interested in having that here), but simply about eliminating avoidance of the tax rates that currently exist.

[Byron]

Why do you keep tying everything back to Labour?

Don't you realise? Everything that has ever gone wrong in history is down to Labour and it's all because they've dared to elect a socialist.

[GS]

Don't you realise? Everything that has ever gone wrong in history is down to Labour and it's all because they've dared to elect a socialist.

This debate is in a UK context, arising as it does from the links to Cameron's wholly legal ownership of offshore shares. There are two alternative approaches advocated by the main parties (Corbyn's Labour and Cameron's Tories) to how to deal with business and the accompanying taxation schedules thereon, hence the reference. I also think that Corbyn's Labour, and the views espoused by John McDonnell, do quite neatly fit the general view of the 'left' towards business and higher earners. This is quite a neat summary (here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34244142)), which I think demonstrates the relevance, again, of the reference.


That's a fatalistic assertion, and I simply can't believe it. I just don't think anyone with any power has the wherewithal to actually take steps to prevent it from happening.

I'm not suggesting that the solution is "just like the current system, but looking harder", which seems to be how you're interpreting it. They'd probably have to restructure large elements of the way they register transactions, apportion tax, etc. from the ground up. It'd be a huge job which would require significant care and thought, but a job worth doing. This is nothing to do with the tax rates, which is another argument (as I noted before - I'm not interested in having that here), but simply about eliminating avoidance of the tax rates that currently exist.

Yes, but this would require an international approach to ensure that such avoidance was 'cut off' in every developed economy. If this was an exercise which we undertook ourselves within the UK, it would significantly raise the risk profile of a) investing in the UK and b) continuing to operate in the UK. Largely because businesses couldn't be sure what the outcome would be and may find themselves exposed to significantly increased tax bills on activities which were previously legal, or even retrospective claims. Companies would naturally seek to reduce exposure on this.

Given the complexity of such transactions and arrangements, and the need to develop and (re-)negotiate "double taxation relief" programmes with several countries as part of any 'solution', it's a process which would likely take years and would lead to the dreaded 'uncertainty' for, one expects, not that significant a gain in revenue to the exchequer. Companies would take the 'appropriate' steps to protect their interests and that of their shareholders including, potentially, moving elsewhere. A recent example would be the statements from some corporations that they would move their headquarters to London from Scotland in the event of independence. One can question how much of this was a campaign tactic, but it would seem a reasonable assumption to make that many would have undertaken such a move to an environment which provides them with the resources they need and the trading and market environment they want to operate in. This is a competitive global economy, and the UK (particularly the City of London) is competing for business with other developed economies and other global trading hubs (e.g. Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Tokyo et al).

It leaves a sour taste, but this is the hand that is dealt to the British government (left or right) and they must play their cards as best they can. Attempting unilateral action will not lead to the results you would want because businesses can just go elsewhere, taking their jobs and their investment with them. "Good riddance" may be cried, but where are you replacing those jobs or finding the money for unemployment benefit instead?

It's simply not as easy as people would like it to be. There isn't the political will for a global (or even a G8 or G20) solution. Take the Americans. You can set up shell companies in Delaware which perform the same function as one in Panama. It would require the federal government to do something about it, and the federal government trampling on states' rights has generally not went very well for them.

It's therefore not a fatalistic assertion. It's one which recognises the hand that a British government is dealt. I think this is the best way to play your hand, because to do otherwise is trying to build bricks without straw.

[Henry]

"Fatalistic assertion" is the best description of GS's posting style and entire philosophy I've seen yet.

[GS]

And yet I note you're incapable of refuting the assertions without recourse to stupid positions.

[Henry]

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

All right, Harold.

[GS]

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

What statement in my response to Ital do you require 'evidence' for? References to companies managing risk profiles, the length of time spent on complex investigations, negotiation of DTR regimes, the existence of a competitive global environment and the lack of political willpower would all appear to be, on the surface, fair assertions.

I think a big part of the problem here is that you adhere to viewpoints which are fantastic rather than fatalistic. At least my viewpoints have the merit of realism. I note you still have a picture of David Cameron with a pig, a now completely discredited story put about by a non-com Tory billionaire as revenge for not being appointed defence secretary - such infantilism is typical of your views, which really just boil down to hating people or organisations which have money.

[ItalAussie]

I don't buy it. If you're asserting that paying what the British government has deemed a fair tax rate is going to scare them away from operating in Britain, then they shouldn't be there in the first place. There's a highly able and educated potential employees and an affluent market in the UK that companies want access to. As countries go, the UK is a premium product, and could charge accordingly if it ensured that profits obtained on transactions that any reasonable assessment would consider to be British were actually taxed as such. :sorry:

But even so, that's an entirely an argument about tax rates, which is not the thrust of my point here. The tax rates are what they are, whether they should be or not. I'm saying that the tax system should be restructured to avoid tax avoidance loopholes. Like, for example, how the US deals with personal income tax. While I'm not suggesting that it's a case of implementing that precise model on a corporate scale, it's clear that there are at least potentially ways around the issue which people aren't interested in investigating.

[GS]

I don't buy that. If you're asserting that paying what the British government has deemed a fair tax rate is going to scare them away from operating in Britain, then they shouldn't be there in the first place. :sorry:

But even so, that's an argument about tax rates. I'm saying that the tax system should be restructured to avoid tax avoidance loopholes. Like, for example, how the US deals with personal income tax.

Yes, and as I articulated above such a restructuring would require an international consensus and an international approach to be a worthwhile exercise. There is no point in our undertaking an extensive overhaul of our taxation system over several years only to find that it means less jobs, less revenue for the exchequer and a general decline in willingness to invest and 'do business' in the country. Once again, I reiterate the point that this is a global economy. London doesn't compete with Manchester any more as it would have 100 years ago. It competes with Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris. That must be recognised as a starting point when you're proposing unilaterally-driven solutions to an international problem.

You can repeatedly state you 'don't accept that' or 'don't buy it', but I do think you're missing the point. I don't understand what you expect to happen if the British 'go it alone'. Perhaps ideological zeal is satisfied, but that will be of no comfort if there are less jobs, and there is lower investment and reduced prosperity.

[ItalAussie]

Yes, and as I articulated above such a restructuring would require an international consensus and an international approach to be a worthwhile exercise. There is no point in our undertaking an extensive overhaul of our taxation system over several years only to find that it means less jobs, less revenue for the exchequer and a general decline in willingness to invest and 'do business' in the country. Once again, I reiterate the point that this is a global economy. London doesn't compete with Manchester any more as it would have 100 years ago. It competes with Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris. That must be recognised as a starting point when you're proposing unilaterally-driven solutions to an international problem.

You're still basically making the argument that taxes can't be high though. I'm making the argument that tax avoidance loopholes should be closed. Those aren't even mutually exclusive because they're two totally different things. I don't care if tax rates are lower (I don't believe it needs to or should be, but it's not relevant to my stance in this discussion), as long as companies can't avoid paying taxes on profits obtained as a consequence of access to the British market. If the taxes necessarily have to be lowered to compensate, I'm actually kind of alright with that, even if I'd rather they weren't.

There's no "international consensus" stopping the US from charging its own citizens income tax if their country of residence doesn't do so, which they do precisely to prevent individuals taking advantage of situations like this. There are ways to make it work; even if that's not the precise model for use on a corporate scale, there are potentially commensurate ideas that could be built upon.

[Lewis]

The PAY YOUR TAX (which he has done) protests looked like a laugh. You've got to admire the Socialist Workers Party in a way. Not for the rape stuff; but to say they're actually about eight blokes in a flat somewhere, their marketing is brilliant. The less said about the anarchists you get at these things the better.

[GS]

You're still basically making the argument that taxes can't be high though. I'm making the argument that tax avoidance loopholes should be closed. Those aren't mutually exclusive because they're two totally different things. I don't care if tax rates are lower (I would rather it wasn't and don't believe it needs to or should be, but it's not relevant to my stance in this discussion), as long as companies can't avoid paying taxes on profits obtained as a consequence of access to the British market. If the taxes necessarily have to be lowered to compensate, I'm actually kind of alright with that, even if I'd rather they weren't.

There's no international consensus on the US charging its own citizens income tax if their country doesn't do so, precisely to prevent individuals taking advantage of situations like this. There are ways to make it work; even if that's not the precise model for use on a corporate scale, there are potentially commensurate ideas that could be built upon.

The Americans are one of only two countries in the world which impose taxation based on citizenship rather than residency. It can lead to 'double taxation' of income for American citizens, but short of giving up their passport there's nothing they can do about it. That's their call, but it's irrelevant in the context of taxation on corporations.

I am also not making the argument, in this context, regarding corporation tax rates themselves. This is about determining what is the 'taxable amount' in and of itself. Tax avoidance loopholes exist because of international business conditions, where companies are operating across various jurisdictions or where they can incorporate elsewhere. What I am saying to you is that the UK cannot exercise control over the legal or taxation systems of other countries, including the Overseas Dependencies. We are therefore limited to making changes within the jurisdiction of the UK and the UK only, and the effectiveness of that is highly questionable. Companies could simply move elsewhere to continue availing of taxation loopholes which have not been closed in countries with which we are competing for investment.

From a purely practical perspective, the UK would be required to undertake the following steps:

1) You would be required to negotiate new DTR regimes on a bilateral basis with any number of countries, including the Overseas Dependencies. This is a process which could take years, particularly as the countries in question would be very reluctant to amend existing programmes which have been highly beneficial for them. From the company's perspective, if the UK closes this loophole and Germany allows it, why would you choose the former and not the latter as a country for investment? You wouldn't.

2) You would then be required to undertake an extensive overhaul of what is and isn't subject to UK taxation. This would involve large cost and increased risk to companies. This would significantly increase their risk profile during transition and thereafter, and they would take steps to reduce exposure. That could well entail moving offices or headquarters to a jurisdiction which will continue to allow tax loopholes such as this to exist and which they can avail of. Or it could involve investing somewhere where the regulations are significantly less onerous.

We would therefore do nothing other than bring a significant period of uncertainty into our market, for negligible gain as part of a unilateral effort to close tax loopholes which continue to exist elsewhere. In the absence of an international approach we are merely handicapping ourselves by providing a less attractive market for business.

I would like to point out here that I don't like offshore accounts, I don't like tax avoidance loopholes, I don't like the way they're taken advantage of. However, one must be wholly realistic in terms of what we can and cannot achieve on a unilateral basis. Perhaps ideology is satisfied if we make these changes, but they would have negligible impact on the practice in and of itself. Additional revenues would likely be negligible (companies having had sufficient time to plan and protect themselves), and the impact on the market a negative one (by reducing the willingness to invest in or enter the market by international companies).

Once there's an international consensus, then we should be full-throttle behind driving a change. As it is, there's no chance of that happening in the immediate future so we'd be doing nothing but pissing into the wind.

This is a separate issue from the percentage of tax to apply on those amounts, but it is interconnected in the sense of determining what is and isn't subject to taxation and therefore what liability the company is going to incur in the financial year.

[GS]

The PAY YOUR TAX (which he has done) protests looked like a laugh. You've got to admire the Socialist Workers Party in a way. Not for the rape stuff; but to say they're actually about eight blokes in a flat somewhere, their marketing is brilliant. The less said about the anarchists you get at these things the better.

He's released his tax returns, which show absolutely nothing of interest. It's a bit of a worrying precedent really, because now it's going to be like America where someone's private finances are subject to intense scrutiny by a public with only vague understanding of the legal frameworks. All he's done as well is open up further questions like "what about before 2010?", "where's your wife's?" or "the Chancellor should be releasing his personal financial information too."

I quite enjoyed this, actually: http://order-order.com/2015/07/17/rich-and-famous-owen-jones-joins-the-1/ - standard hypocrisy, unfortunately.

[phonics]

I quite enjoyed this, actually: http://order-order.com/2015/07/17/rich-and-famous-owen-jones-joins-the-1/ - standard hypocrisy, unfortunately.

What's the hypocrisy here? 'Man releases book that sells well'?

[GS]

It's champagne socialism, decrying business for making money and denouncing the rich all the while you're binning off your independent publisher for a global giant so you can make as much money as possible. No doubt he'll still present himself as a 'man of the people', despite now being in the 1% he repeatedly sticks the boot into.

[Yevrah]

What's the hypocrisy here? 'Man releases book that sells well'?

Hypocrisy is probably the wrong word, but when he was an impoverished jouno on £20k p/a, it was easy to call the MP's on £40k-£50k at the time out of touch because of their earnings, I wonder if he feels the same way now?

[Yevrah]

It's champagne socialism, decrying business for making money and denouncing the rich all the while you're binning off your independent publisher for a global giant so you can make as much money as possible.

Yep - Jumped up twat who used to not earn that much in 'liking having (a lot of) money' shocker.

[phonics]

Absolutely bizarre reaction from you two here. It's like when the papers have a go at Charlotte Church and friends for daring to go on an anti-poverty protest AND live in a big house.

[Lee]

I think we can all agree that Owen Jones is a wanker.

I fucking detest lefties like him. Pretending to speak for the working class. The working class want paedophiles hanged, veg labelled in lbs and ounces and would quite like the gays to keep their antics behind closed doors. You're a middle class intellectual left liberal, Owen. It's okay mate.

[phonics]

I'd also like to state for the record that I find Owen Jones a wanker.

[GS]

Yes, I note that anti-capitalist and noted protestor Russell Brand recently purchased a £3.3m home as well.

The point is that people are happy to protest but engage in the same practices which they denounce. Owen Jones isn't a scumbag for moving to a global publisher and making money, but he made a conscious money-driven decision which deprived his previous smaller, independent publisher of significant income. It would be hypocrisy for him to then turn around and denounce any individual or any business for making a similar money-driven decision to maximise their income or wealth e.g. offshore accounts. Similarly, he has, in the past, demanded that MPs salaries are cut because they're not 'representative'. He uses his columns as a political platform and claims to speak on behalf of the working class. Again, this is hypocrisy. Not only is he making financially-driven decisions to maximise his wealth, but how can he profess to be representative of the working class when earning half a million in one year alone?

I have no problem with people making money, or taking decisions to maximise their income and their wealth. I have a very big problem when people who are doing that try to tell other people that they're wrong for doing the same thing.

[Lee]

Ed Miliband went to Russell Brand's house in a general election campaign. :D :D :D

[GS]

I think we can all agree that Owen Jones is a wanker.

I fucking detest lefties like him. Pretending to speak for the working class. The working class want paedophiles hanged, veg labelled in lbs and ounces and would quite like the gays to keep their antics behind closed doors. You're a middle class intellectual left liberal, Owen. It's okay mate.

I'm reminded of the manner in which the pigs in Animal Farm found they actually quite liked living in Farmer Jones' house before keeping the beer for themselves.


Ed Miliband went to Russell Brand's house in a general election campaign. :D :D :D

It's almost hard to believe someone didn't take him aside to ask if he really thought it was a good idea.

[phonics]

Yes, I note that anti-capitalist and noted protestor Russell Brand recently purchased a £3.3m home as well.

Once again, nothing wrong with that. Once again, going to point out I think he's a wanker.

[Lee]

Is Russell Brand a 'noted protester'?

I just thought people had him badged as an attention seeking twat, and very probably mentally ill.

[Yevrah]

There is nothing wrong with buying a £3m house, but if you're pretending you're the same as the poor bastards who have to work in Sports Direct warehouses for 50+ hours a week and it's both you and them in it together against the 1%/establishment then you're having a fucking laugh.

[phonics]

There is nothing wrong with buying a £3m house, but if you're pretending you're the same as the poor bastards who have to work in Sports Direct warehouses for 50+ hours a week and it's both you and them in it together against the 1%/establishment then you're having a fucking laugh.

But he's not. That's just you making it up because you don't like him. He says he knows people like that, he says that's the state of the people he grew up with. What's wrong with that?

[Lee]

Owen Jones would get battered if he went to a Sports Direct warehouse. Imagine him in a working mans' club? I went to some shithole liberal club in Nuneaton on Friday night and I thought I was in for a night of less-than-tender loving. Fuck knows what would happen to that little shit if he tried starting a conversation about politics.

[Yevrah]

But he's not. That's just you making it up because you don't like him. He says he knows people like that, he says that's the state of the people he grew up with. What's wrong with that?

We're talking about Brand now, no?

In which case that's absolutely what he's like, inspiring people to rise up against the elite (as if he's some champion of them) and er..., not vote.

At least that's how he came across when serious news programmes were inexplicably giving him airtime almost unchallenged.

[Lewis]

Jeremy Corbyn's son is John McDonnell's Chief of Staff (having been a reseacher for years). If you start demanding TRANSPARENCY in how politicians arrange their private affairs, why not have a look at things like that? I could take the moral high-ground on behalf of the over-educated jobless twats of the world.

[Lee]

His brother is a mental weather man who has been predicting the dawn of a new ice age for at least the last ten winters. Some fucking upbringing they must have had.

[Lewis]

John McDonnell sez 'We will ensure that any donor that is linked to the Labour Party will not be using devices to avoid tax or evade tax'. Good luck, mate.

[GS]

They do themselves no favours whatsoever sometimes.

[Yevrah]

In an interesting development having just looked at them, David Cameron despite telling everyone that he'd publish his tax returns, hasn't actually published his tax returns.

[Byron]

Forgot you were an accountant(ish)

What has he published then?

[Yevrah]

He's published a summary of the last 5 years, pulled together, annotated and countersigned by an audit firm.

Now I'm not suggesting the audit firm are being dishonest in any way, as that would be mental, but it does seem an odd way of doing it and not strictly what I understood he'd said he'd do.

[GS]

I think it's fine - it's just a standard 'lead schedule' and it provides the headline figures. I reckon there's a real risk that if you published the full details a lot of people wouldn't actually understand how tax, you know, works.

[Yevrah]

I think it's fine - it's just a standard 'lead schedule' and it provides the headline figures. I reckon there's a real risk that if you published the full details a lot of people wouldn't actually understand how tax, you know, works.

Similar to what you were saying the other day - I think a lot of people don't really give a shit.

And unless those that do are monumentally dense, it should take about all of 30 seconds to work out he's done nothing wrong.

That Labour have chosen a strategy to attempt to wrap this up with actual avoidance or evasion is disgusting, frankly.

[Byron]

He's published a summary of the last 5 years, pulled together, annotated and countersigned by an audit firm.

Now I'm not suggesting the audit firm are being dishonest in any way, as that would be mental, but it does seem an odd way of doing it and not strictly what I understood he'd said he'd do.

Oh I see. Well if it's been signed by an audit firm then I'm not seeing the issue.

[GS]

Similar to what you were saying the other day - I think a lot of people don't really give a shit.

And unless those that do are monumentally dense, it should take about all of 30 seconds to work out he's done nothing wrong.

That Labour have chosen a strategy to attempt to wrap this up with actual avoidance or evasion is disgusting, frankly.

It is absolutely grim. That article I posted the other day from Jess "that happens every Friday night in Birmingham" Phillips remains the low water mark. Just a horrendous personal attack, largely based on nothing more than his family are rich and they engaged in legal (and advisable) tax planning.

[Henry]

Cameron intervened to prevent offshore trusts from being part of European Union moves on tax avoidance. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/david-cameron-argued-to-water-down-transparency-rules-over-trust/)

Yougov poll shows Corbyn with a higher approval than Cameron. (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/camerons-ratings-now-lower-corbyns/)

LOL

[GS]

1) Trusts and companies are clearly different, the former being one which holds assets until such time as they are sold / released (perhaps with interest arising if it's held as cash) and the latter being an entity where business activity (and hence corporation taxes) are likely to arise every year. In the former, in order to get hold of the money, it would have to remitted to the UK and thus subject to HMRC taxation once remitted. In the latter, placing the company in Panama (or wherever) ensures no annual taxation charge to HMRC as it's not being 'remitted' to the UK on an annual basis. The latter is, therefore, clearly a priority over the former.

I also note in the article that Labour say that Cameron "won't held our steel industry". He can't - we're in the EU. Stop lying to score political points, lads.

2) This is entirely expected at this stage of the cycle and the remarkable thing it's taken this long for Corbyn's numbers to actually reach this point, although it's questionable whether they will stand up after the inevitable hit in the local and Scottish elections next month.

LOL indeed. You fucking bore.

[Boydy]

You calling someone a bore is a bit rich, tbh.

[GS]

You calling someone a bore is a bit rich, tbh.

At least I argue my point properly rather than resorting to absolute shite. The one thing we can take from this is that Henry has a vague (at best) understanding of taxation and how it actually works.

[phonics]

Stop lying to score political points, lads.

Hahahahahahahaahaha

[phonics]

Guardians lead tomorrow

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CftU0SNW4AIVYLJ.jpg

'at Cameron Fund Lawyers' is some proper newspaper way to say that. Is the whole thing even an actual sentence?

[GS]

Hahahahahahahaahaha

EU state aid rules prevent the government intervening. To say they "won't do anything" when they know that they can't is a lie.

[phonics]

EU state aid rules prevent the government intervening. To say they "won't do anything" when they know that they can't is a lie.

Mate, you're Tory boy number one. They've been lying to score political points for near enough 2 election cycles now. All politicians lie all the time. Let's not pretend shall we? It's quite dull.

[GS]

Mate, you're Tory boy number one. They've been lying to score political points for near enough 2 election cycles now.

I think I was quite clearly talking about this one example, "mate".

[phonics]

I just quoted that sentence, because it was dumb, and laughed at the ridiculousness of it.

[GS]

Even though it's factually correct.

Alright.

[phonics]

http://i.giphy.com/g5zvwUa9720pO.gif

[Henry]

At least I argue my point properly rather than resorting to absolute shite. The one thing we can take from this is that Henry has a vague (at best) understanding of taxation and how it actually works.

Your arguing your point is basically to dish out condascending personal abuse at this stage, of which labelling me a bore with no provocation is just the latest example. I have better things to do than argue my point with you given your attitude, which is why I've stopped, despite my ill-advised earlier attempt.

Anyway, on topic for those interesting in it, Osbourne is now coming under scrutiny as well..

[GS]

I think it largely boils down to the fact that once you move beyond demanding fairness and that the rich 'pay their way' you're not sufficiently informed on the subject to argue the individual points out. This isn't surprising as it's not your profession.

[Lewis]

This (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-prime-ministers-perk-7725537) is quality from The Mirror. The headline reads David Cameron's 'Prime Minister's perk' as £20,000 of his salary was TAX-FREE, and then the article explains how he hasn't bothered to claim it since 2011. How much money has he saved the country doing that? I bet it would be enough to pay for a doctor/nurse/teacher (I take it spending is still measured in those units).

[Byron]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36017171

He really does not give a fuck :cool:

[randomlegend]

It's so fucking pathetic. They're literally like primary school kids.

[Magic]

It looks like jolly good fun, though.

[GS]

What's even the point of getting on like that?

[GS]

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 1m1 minute ago
"The UK should take direct control of its overseas territories that might be used as tax havens":
Agree: 72%
Disagree: 11%
(via ComRes)

Outstanding.

[Lewis]

Somebody should model the sort of burden (in teachers and nurses) said territories would be to us once we had invaded and collapsed their economies.

[phonics]

The King of Saudi Arabia funded Netanyahu's re-election campaign to the tune of 80 million dollars. :cab:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ch-U0stU4AA6m52.jpg:large

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/panama-papers-data-leak-king-saudi-arabia-sponsored-netanyahus-campaign/

[Dela]

There is a searchable database for the Panama Papers being published tonight by ICIJ, around 7pm UK time. It will probably generate another round of stories.

[Henry]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/may/06/panama-papers-us-launches-crackdown-on-international-tax-evasion

Here's the US cracking down. Impossible!

[niko_cee]

Greater KYC requirements?

[Kikó]

This along with Fatca makes banking in the USA fun.

[phonics]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/may/06/panama-papers-us-launches-crackdown-on-international-tax-evasion

Here's the US cracking down. Impossible!

Considering they've got five hundred times the amount in the state of Delaware, I'm not sure they're that bothered.

[GS]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/may/06/panama-papers-us-launches-crackdown-on-international-tax-evasion

Here's the US cracking down. Impossible!

A lot of it is administrative, designed to increase transparency and thus reduce the incentive to 'avoid' taxation through complex arrangements. It won't do much, as the article itself notes. He's also not proposing to crack down on state-level tax avoidance, which is a key reason why American involvement in the Panama Papers was so limited. To suggest this is "cracking down" is misguided, as it's very much a series of peripheral measures.

He'll also be lucky to get any such measures through Congress at the minute, although he'll no doubt have to resort to executive action.

This is, unfortunately, gesture politics.

[Shindig]

Pity Trump's not got an account with them, really.

[Giggles]

What's this Vault7 9/11 stuff then?