Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Yeah you've done this more often Stevo.

When you take the less savoury side of the normal and then when someone tries to pin you down on what yo think, you back out like a wuss.

You've commented enough on the issue to have a view. If you deconstruct your discourse, you can see you're broadly in favour of tax havens; you spend a lot of time trying to pick apart arguments against them.

I don't need to do the research to get your opinion. And you're too much of a wuss to give one. Given the argument at the level the forum operates at is more or less entirely about opinions, it's a cop-out.

ballysmate

When you take the less savoury side of the normal

What is meant by that? Less savoury? Are you saying that your views are normal and because his views differ they are in some way less valid.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah you've done this more often Stevo.

When you take the less savoury side of the normal and then when someone tries to pin you down on what yo think, you back out like a wuss.

You've commented enough on the issue to have a view. If you deconstruct your discourse, you can see you're broadly in favour of tax havens; you spend a lot of time trying to pick apart arguments against them.

I don't need to do the research to get your opinion. And you're too much of a wuss to give one. Given the argument at the level the forum operates at is more or less entirely about opinions, it's a cop-out.

Stop trying to reverse things Rick. You said there was a problem, you make the case. At the moment there isnt one because you can't make it. So you try to turn it round on me to deflect from your lack of a case, probably because as with other things related to tax, you don't really know what you're talking about beyond having some vague sense of social injustice.

Go on, prove me wrong

mamba80

If your a chartered or certified accountant who specialisation is tax, you ll know all about tax and tax havens, i went out with one who had worked for kpmg and Coopers (in the day) and she knew all about every aspect as it was part of her job to know, so you must have an opinion, without doing research........

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

If your a chartered or certified accountant who specialisation is tax, you ll know all about tax and tax havens, i went out with one who had worked for kpmg and Coopers (in the day) and she knew all about every aspect as it was part of her job to know, so you must have an opinion, without doing research........

Maybe you want to show me the rule book where it says I have to state an opinion on everything Feel free to make your case if you think you can...

For a start nobody seems to be able to say how much this is reducing tax revenues so for a start we have no idea whether it is a big issue for the UK compared for to to other forms of avoidance or evasion, or indeed overspending. Unless you can find some evidence?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

When you take the less savoury side of the normal

What is meant by that? Less savoury? Are you saying that your views are normal and because his views differ they are in some way less valid.

Bally, don't forget, Rick is the moral standard by which all others are to be judged. And the people who spout this brand of arrogant tosh are still wondering why they got annihilated at the polls last May.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

If your a chartered or certified accountant who specialisation is tax, you ll know all about tax and tax havens, i went out with one who had worked for kpmg and Coopers (in the day) and she knew all about every aspect as it was part of her job to know, so you must have an opinion, without doing research........

Maybe you want to show me the rule book where it says I have to state an opinion on everything Feel free to make your case if you think you can...

For a start nobody seems to be able to say how much this is reducing tax revenues so for a start we have no idea whether it is a big issue for the UK compared for to to other forms of avoidance or evasion, or indeed overspending. Unless you can find some evidence?

the case is being made very recently, by EU, your government, IMF, OECD, if you dont know about this.......

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

If your a chartered or certified accountant who specialisation is tax, you ll know all about tax and tax havens, i went out with one who had worked for kpmg and Coopers (in the day) and she knew all about every aspect as it was part of her job to know, so you must have an opinion, without doing research........

Maybe you want to show me the rule book where it says I have to state an opinion on everything Feel free to make your case if you think you can...

For a start nobody seems to be able to say how much this is reducing tax revenues so for a start we have no idea whether it is a big issue for the UK compared for to to other forms of avoidance or evasion, or indeed overspending. Unless you can find some evidence?

the case is being made very recently, by EU, your government, IMF, OECD, if you dont know about this.......

OK, if it's in the public domain you'll be able to tell us how much roughly is is costing the nation so that we can prioritise accordingly.

pblakeney

A considerable amount.

Depending on your source.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ce-network

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

If your a chartered or certified accountant who specialisation is tax, you ll know all about tax and tax havens, i went out with one who had worked for kpmg and Coopers (in the day) and she knew all about every aspect as it was part of her job to know, so you must have an opinion, without doing research........

Maybe you want to show me the rule book where it says I have to state an opinion on everything Feel free to make your case if you think you can...

For a start nobody seems to be able to say how much this is reducing tax revenues so for a start we have no idea whether it is a big issue for the UK compared for to to other forms of avoidance or evasion, or indeed overspending. Unless you can find some evidence?

the case is being made very recently, by EU, your government, IMF, OECD, if you dont know about this.......

OK, if it's in the public domain you'll be able to tell us how much roughly is is costing the nation so that we can prioritise accordingly.

well, you are supposed to be the TAX expert????

various Governments around the world inc George Os are trying to change rules and laws on tax evasion..... benefit fraud is approx 1.2billion a year, tax avoidance and evasion are many times this, how much is dependant on which source you or i pick.
have you no access to trade papers on this? you should have

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah you've done this more often Stevo.

When you take the less savoury side of the normal and then when someone tries to pin you down on what yo think, you back out like a wuss.

You've commented enough on the issue to have a view. If you deconstruct your discourse, you can see you're broadly in favour of tax havens; you spend a lot of time trying to pick apart arguments against them.

I don't need to do the research to get your opinion. And you're too much of a wuss to give one. Given the argument at the level the forum operates at is more or less entirely about opinions, it's a cop-out.

Stop trying to reverse things Rick. You said there was a problem, you make the case. At the moment there isnt one because you can't make it. So you try to turn it round on me to deflect from your lack of a case, probably because as with other things related to tax, you don't really know what you're talking about beyond having some vague sense of social injustice.

Go on, prove me wrong

I asked what your opinion was. Do you think it's a problem? You replied with "show me evidence it's a problem". That isn't answering the question "what is your opinion on it?"

That's asking another question.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

If your a chartered or certified accountant who specialisation is tax, you ll know all about tax and tax havens, i went out with one who had worked for kpmg and Coopers (in the day) and she knew all about every aspect as it was part of her job to know, so you must have an opinion, without doing research........

Maybe you want to show me the rule book where it says I have to state an opinion on everything Feel free to make your case if you think you can...

For a start nobody seems to be able to say how much this is reducing tax revenues so for a start we have no idea whether it is a big issue for the UK compared for to to other forms of avoidance or evasion, or indeed overspending. Unless you can find some evidence?

the case is being made very recently, by EU, your government, IMF, OECD, if you dont know about this.......

OK, if it's in the public domain you'll be able to tell us how much roughly is is costing the nation so that we can prioritise accordingly.

well, you are supposed to be the TAX expert????

various Governments around the world inc George Os are trying to change rules and laws on tax evasion..... benefit fraud is approx 1.2billion a year, tax avoidance and evasion are many times this, how much is dependant on which source you or i pick.
have you no access to trade papers on this? you should have

There's a subtle difference between knowing about tax and knowing the data on what the real world financial impact is of a specific area of avoidance/evasion

I have seen the HMRC report on the overall UK 'tax gap' but nowhere is this specific issue addressed. We do not appear to know what this is costing and where this ranks alongside other areas of tax 'leakage' or other areas of benefits, spending etc. Without that how does anyone decide whether this is a major issue for the UK and whether to prioritise it above other issues? At present people like yourselves seem to be prioritising it on the basis of the following:
1. There's a storm in the popular press despite tax havens being around for donkeys years
2. Use of tax havens is something that some part of a set of people and businesses that you don't like are engaging in.

Nor can anyone seems to put forward a sensible definition of what a tax haven is and which ones should be dealt with. I've asked it before more than once and the answer was dodged by at least one cop out merchant Even the EU can't agree on what a tax haven is in their latest announcement on tackling avoidance.

So we don't know what the cost is or what the set of territories is that needs dealing with. Pretty essential really for having sensible opinion on this issue and any possible solutions.

Unless you fancy having a crack at addressing these points - Rick and mamba have both dodged the issue.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo. I sense you wouldn't be in favour of closing tax havens. If so, why not?

Not the case Rick, they benefit me neither personally nor in terms of my job as we don't use structures like that, although indirectly, tax competition between countries to attract investment can work in my favour on the corporate front. So overall not too bothered.

However I recognise the right of sovereign and independently governed territories to set tax rates that they feel are appropriate for their circumstances. There are some fairly mainstream countries which have tax rates that now are at levels that many might consider tax haven territory. Where do you draw the line?
https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/tax-rates-online/corporate-tax-rates-table.html

Also, how do you propose to 'close' a sovereign territory?

And here's what a I said a few pages back in case you forgot Rick.

How about addressing my questions - which you have been dodging for some time now...

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

From the link.

“In the subsequent negotiations, we were able to secure a sensible way forward which ensures that trusts which generate tax consequences have to report their ownership to HMRC.”

So I assume as no-one has alleged illegal practice, this was complied with. If not, offenders should be punished. So if HMRC did know, are the grounds for people's ire the fact that nobody told the public about their individual financial dealings? Well I haven't published mine either.

And part of the quote from the Dutch MEP

“Some member states saw it as an underhand way for the UK to get an advantage.”

If this is the case, nice one Dave!

The PSC (Persons with Significant Control) legislation came into force yesterday in the UK. That is on top of all the other rules that govern disclosure in tax and general legal matters, which are pretty extensive.

Anyone who thinks that there are not substantial rules around these things in this country has not read the rules (which I have to as part of my job...). The key to this is not what rules we have, it is the disclosures that tax havens are prepared to make to other jurisdictions. Many have concluded information sharing agreements: some have not. As many of these are sovereign states, they cannot be forced to do so, but generally there are retaliatory measures that are taken like imposition of withholding taxes on outbound payments.

See below: British territories classed as tax havens (i.e. those over which the UK government have control/influence) have signed these information sharing agreements with the UK three years ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22374923
So what are people moaning about?

And some of my recent comments on what the UK has already done, in case people have short memories.

Stevo_666

So no-one else has an opinion then?

ballysmate

I will obviously let Stevo answer the first bit for himself, but what I would say is I'd be wary of arguing with anyone on here on a subject that they were eminently more qualified on than me, lest I made myself look foolish.

As regards Blair, I had him pegged as a weasel 20 years ago, it just took lefties a long time to cotton on to the 'pretty straight kind of guy'

Cameron is already rich, which seems to be a bit of a problem in this country. He has often tried to downplay his wealth because he realises it doesn't sit well with the public for some reason.

Although I think Blair a weasel, I have no problem with people paying thousands to hear him spout bollox. A fool and his money and all that...

Lookyhere

the last word........

http://mirrorspectrum.com/info/cameron- ... the-30000#

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

I will obviously let Stevo answer the first bit for himself, but what I would say is I'd be wary of arguing with anyone on here on a subject that they were eminently more qualified on than me, lest I made myself look foolish.

I have to confess that with the populist sh1tstorm over tax havens on here I've lost track of what I'm meant to be answering.

Last thing I heard the world would spin off its axis if I didnt come up with an opinion that I'd already provided about 10 pages back and when reminded of this there was a loud clanking of bottles from somewhere left of centre

Lets see if someone fancies sticking their head above the parapet with an attempt at the scale of the issue and how it might be solved.

mamba80

Steve0, there is no point to this thread, you dont answer the questions raised, you cant even ans ricks Q on whether you as a so called tax expert, think tax havens are good thing or not?

Its just the same tory guff for over 100 pages, DC/tories can do no wrong in your eyes, everything is fine and dandy in steve0 land.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Steve0, there is no point to this thread, you dont answer the questions raised, you cant even ans ricks Q on whether you as a so called tax expert, think tax havens are good thing or not?

Its just the same tory guff for over 100 pages, DC/tories can do no wrong in your eyes, everything is fine and dandy in steve0 land.

You've seen my answers above - reposted for clarity and convenience. That's my view, like it or lump it.

You say there's a problem, what is it and how is it solved? We are the bizarre situation of a group of people who say there is a problem but are unable or unwilling to explain either the issues or the proposed solution, yet are getting their knickers in a twist at someone who has said already said above that he's not really that bothered. Put up or shut up.

You could start by defining a tax haven as I have asked several times.

mamba80

Steve0 your Gov thinks there is a problem, the oecd do,the imf, the EU, only you appear to want the status quo, the original question askd by Rick was what you think?
you ve spent numerous replies batting that away........ you are just trying to get us to go around in cycles arguing what xyz is etc etc drawing attention away from the issue you pretend to want to address.

You are the one who is failing to engage here because you know you cannot defend tax havens.

Stevo_666

Good try...as mentioned my view is above.

So what is a tax haven and where do you draw the line? And how much is the UK losing? Simple enough questions now answer them if you can. I will take silence as inability to answer the question and so even frame the issue in a sensible way.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo. I sense you wouldn't be in favour of closing tax havens. If so, why not?

Not the case Rick, they benefit me neither personally nor in terms of my job as we don't use structures like that, although indirectly, tax competition between countries to attract investment can work in my favour on the corporate front. So overall not too bothered.

However I recognise the right of sovereign and independently governed territories to set tax rates that they feel are appropriate for their circumstances. There are some fairly mainstream countries which have tax rates that now are at levels that many might consider tax haven territory. Where do you draw the line?
https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/tax-rates-online/corporate-tax-rates-table.html

Also, how do you propose to 'close' a sovereign territory?

And here's what a I said a few pages back in case you forgot Rick.

How about addressing my questions - which you have been dodging for some time now...

My views again.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

From the link.

“In the subsequent negotiations, we were able to secure a sensible way forward which ensures that trusts which generate tax consequences have to report their ownership to HMRC.”

So I assume as no-one has alleged illegal practice, this was complied with. If not, offenders should be punished. So if HMRC did know, are the grounds for people's ire the fact that nobody told the public about their individual financial dealings? Well I haven't published mine either.

And part of the quote from the Dutch MEP

“Some member states saw it as an underhand way for the UK to get an advantage.”

If this is the case, nice one Dave!

The PSC (Persons with Significant Control) legislation came into force yesterday in the UK. That is on top of all the other rules that govern disclosure in tax and general legal matters, which are pretty extensive.

Anyone who thinks that there are not substantial rules around these things in this country has not read the rules (which I have to as part of my job...). The key to this is not what rules we have, it is the disclosures that tax havens are prepared to make to other jurisdictions. Many have concluded information sharing agreements: some have not. As many of these are sovereign states, they cannot be forced to do so, but generally there are retaliatory measures that are taken like imposition of withholding taxes on outbound payments.

See below: British territories classed as tax havens (i.e. those over which the UK government have control/influence) have signed these information sharing agreements with the UK three years ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22374923
So what are people moaning about?

And some of my recent comments on what the UK has already done, in case people have short memories.

And some additional comments on actions already taken. Included in the current rules are taxability on worldwide income for UK residents and the wide ranging controlled foreign company rules (anti tax haven regs) and tax information exchange agreements with numerous territories. Plus a pretty stiff penalty regime for use of avoidance schemes and criminal penalties for evasion.

We add to that list the UK intention to implement country by country tax reporting for multinationals. Feel free to research any of these areas so that you understand them and their ramifications properly

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Good try...as mentioned my view is above.

So what is a tax haven and where do you draw the line? And how much is the UK losing? Simple enough questions now answer them if you can. I will take silence as inability to answer the question and so even frame the issue in a sensible way.

I can't hear you....

Lookyhere

Steve0, get a life
some things esp when it comes to arguing with you, just arent worth it, as has been said, the worlds leading organisations are attempting to come up with a solution to how certain people and companies are avoiding tax by using Havens, you dont seem to like that..... now dolmio? thats a far more entertaining subject!

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Steve0, get a life
some things esp when it comes to arguing with you, just arent worth it, as has been said, the worlds leading organisations are attempting to come up with a solution to how certain people and companies are avoiding tax by using Havens, you dont seem to like that..... now dolmio? thats a far more entertaining subject!

The Dolmio thing's a bit of a slam dunk though, we all know ready meals are crap. Whereas we don't seem to know what exactly constitutes a tax haven or how much it is costing the UK Now if we can get to grips with those things we can have a sensible conversation, or at least some handbag swinging

ballysmate

To lighten the mood somewhat.
The costs, if any, to the Exchequer of tax havens will be more than made up if Corbyn gets elected as PM. His vegan shadow Environment Secretary reckons meat should be treated the same as tobacco. Barking.

On the other hand, it would make the Dolmio thread academic wouldn't it?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

To lighten the mood somewhat.
The costs, if any, to the Exchequer of tax havens will be more than made up if Corbyn gets elected as PM. His vegan shadow Environment Secretary reckons meat should be treated the same as tobacco. Barking.

On the other hand, it would make the Dolmio thread academic wouldn't it?

I think you will find that meat tends not to bark unless you're in Korea

That said, if Corbyn gets in most other countries will become (at least relatively speaking) tax havens.

Lookyhere

Ballysmate wrote:

To lighten the mood somewhat.
The costs, if any, to the Exchequer of tax havens will be more than made up if Corbyn gets elected as PM. His vegan shadow Environment Secretary reckons meat should be treated the same as tobacco. Barking.

On the other hand, it would make the Dolmio thread academic wouldn't it?

Barking? too many dogs, too few responsible dog owners, So, if we tax dogs and those not taxed were eaten with the new healthier Dogmio problem solved!

Red meat is very destructive for the planet and a major cause of cancers.... things bad for either get taxed by tory and labour so why is it barking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environme ... production

http://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-ca ... prevention