Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

Brexit isn't written down on x number of volumes. In fact, it's not even written down on imaginary impact assessment papers, is it Mr Davis.
So is there any wonder given total uncertainty, some speculation, few concrete outcomes and more cabinet coming and goings than Joan Collins at her peak?

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

Brexit isn't written down on x number of volumes. In fact, it's not even written down on imaginary impact assessment papers, is it Mr Davis.
So is there any wonder given total uncertainty, some speculation, few concrete outcomes and more cabinet coming and goings than Joan Collins at her peak?

nAH it's in law Pinno. You lot have officially blow not your childrens' futures.

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

THey are only agreeing on it because you and me are so good at explaining it.

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

THey are only agreeing on it because you and me are so good at explaining it.

Get fooked, you sheep shagging, Leek munching, faux Italian pseudo quack.

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

THey are only agreeing on it because you and me are so good at explaining it.

Get fooked, you sheep shagging, Leek munching, faux Italian pseudo quack.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but my huge portfolio of liquid and illiquid assets will always be secure in an extremely tax efficient and timely manner in an offshore haven.

Anyone fancy a lift in my jet?

Stevo_666

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

THey are only agreeing on it because you and me are so good at explaining it.

Bit difficult not to. You've held your own very well MF 8)

There is a noticeable absence of the indignant/don't understand tax brigade today. I think we scared them away

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

THey are only agreeing on it because you and me are so good at explaining it.

Bit difficult not to. You've held your own very well MF 8)

There is a noticeable absence of the indignant/don't understand tax brigade today. I think we bored them to shreds.

FTFY.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

I will post something up from tradingeconomics to really get the love flowing.

Where we would disagree is that I would toughen the law to end these "abuses" or remove all exemptions and lower the tax rates (which I am guessing would not suit you)

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

THey are only agreeing on it because you and me are so good at explaining it.

Bit difficult not to. You've held your own very well MF 8)

There is a noticeable absence of the indignant/don't understand tax brigade today. I think we scared them away

Thank you!

I think you performed rather well as well. You can talk offshore tax havens with me any time.

Now, did someone mention TDNFNATN?

Matthewfalle

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

I will post something up from tradingeconomics to really get the love flowing.

Where we would disagree is that I would toughen the law to end these "abuses" or remove all exemptions and lower the tax rates (which I am guessing would not suit you)

I'm pretty shyyyt hot at offshore structures and trustees duties if any wants learning on this stuff,

Also have a smudge of corporate law tucked away.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

THey are only agreeing on it because you and me are so good at explaining it.

Bit difficult not to. You've held your own very well MF 8)

There is a noticeable absence of the indignant/don't understand tax brigade today. I think we bored them to shreds.

FTFY.

You're the exception that proves the rule

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Other way round - he would get an 85% rebate.

There's an echo in here - but you are right.

Isn't this a good thread? We can agree on most things in here, unlike the Eurobollox thread

I will post something up from tradingeconomics to really get the love flowing.

Where we would disagree is that I would toughen the law to end these "abuses" or remove all exemptions and lower the tax rates (which I am guessing would not suit you)

People have been toughening the law for decades, but can't argue too hard against lowering the rates as that does my job for me

Devil is in the detail - although to the extent it causes problems, it often opens up opportunities elsewhere. Most people are debating this from a very UK centric perspective: I see this in Global terms.

Stevo_666

Matthewfalle wrote:

I'm not sure if this has too many big words in it for Rick and Moonchicken but it's worth a go.

https://iea.org.uk/everybody-is-outrage ... t-they-do/

PS: MF - had a full read of this now. That is a very good article and recommended reading for the 'indignant and ignorant' squad before someone kicks off about offshore centres and tax next time round.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I'm not sure if this has too many big words in it for Rick and Moonchicken but it's worth a go.

https://iea.org.uk/everybody-is-outrage ... t-they-do/

PS: MF - had a full read of this now. That is a very good article and recommended reading for the 'indignant and ignorant' squad before someone kicks off about offshore centres and tax next time round.

I m amazed, so instead of avoiding/evading tax and being hyper secretive, they are actually helping the small investor by giving them a greater choice of funds to invest in... and to top it all, if they closed down, we d all be poorer?
who could possibly have come up with this theory?

"The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is an influential right wing think tank based in Westminster, London, United Kingdom"

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I'm not sure if this has too many big words in it for Rick and Moonchicken but it's worth a go.

https://iea.org.uk/everybody-is-outrage ... t-they-do/

PS: MF - had a full read of this now. That is a very good article and recommended reading for the 'indignant and ignorant' squad before someone kicks off about offshore centres and tax next time round.

Well I think we all try to avoid being a sesquipedalian.

Re the article:

But if the investment fund were a UK company, rather than being based in the Caribbean, it would be taxable. Investing through a fund would therefore add a 19% tax charge onto much of the investment income, even though the fund isn’t a real person, it is just a way for the investors to have their capital managed.

No more tax

So the alternative to an offshore fund would not be a UK corporate fund, which would add an additional layer of tax

So they are there to avoid being taxed again. That’s why these things exist in low tax areas, not high tax.

While it is legitimate for the businesses and the investors to be taxed, we don’t want the investment fund to be taxable itself; that would be triple taxation.

I’m fairly sure most things we pay for are at least double taxed.

When I buy anything with vat; I’ve already had my income taxed coming in and I’ll pay vat on that. And the company will have paid Corp tax on the money i helped bring in to pay my salary & bonus.

That’s just the nature of it. That’s no reason to allow it.

Instead they would make their own investments directly and, instead of a fund manager investing it for them, they would have professional advisers telling them where to invest their money.

That would not leave them paying any more UK tax than they do using the offshore fund. With the investors investing directly, the companies they invest in would still pay tax on their profits and the investors would pay tax on their investment returns, exactly the same as with the offshore investment fund, but because there would be no investment fund, there would be no-one else involved to be taxed.

So in summary, investors would avoid using professional managers because of the tax cost. But isn’t the manager providing a service?

And if that was the case, it’s just the structure that would change; the money managers would move in house instead. As they already do in a lot of instances.

The argument that the current structure would leave investors 19% tax worth poorer a) misses the point and b) assumes the structure is static. Presumably the structure has come to exist as a result of current tax conditions.

Only an offshore investment fund can draw in capital from many investors all over the world, creating a large enough pot to employ specialists to manage it, and therefore get vital investment to difficult places where it is really needed.

[/quote]

I don’t buy this. You HAVE to have an offshore structure to run money from different nations? Really????

What the article misses is how often money that would otherwise be put to better use is squirrelled away from countries.

If the article is correct, why does evidence from studies by the IMF, & other reputable organisations, point to offshore tax havens being quite costly for developing countries? The article is all theory and no evidence.




I

rick_chasey

Bluntly, you want your investors to invest in productive assets, not to shunt money around to avoid tax. That’s not productive.

Money men ought to be attracted to good investors, not low tax investors.

Decent international cooperation would help with that.

tangled_metal

Have the accountants taken over yet?

rick_chasey

Tangled Metal wrote:

Have the accountants taken over yet?

Yes it’s all saying “thems the rules” without thinking about whether the rules are optimal for society.

orraloon

Back in the real world of Joe Average, I refer you to the opinions expressed on BBC Have I Got News For You of Friday last of that left wing commie pinko Henry Blofeld, he of cricket commentary fame, on the merits of Mr Hamilton's and such like tax scheme shenanigans. Just coz is legal dunt mean iz right innit, I think he said.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Back in the real world of Joe Average, I refer you to the opinions expressed on BBC Have I Got News For You of Friday last of that left wing commie pinko Henry Blofeld, he of cricket commentary fame, on the merits of Mr Hamilton's and such like tax scheme shenanigans. Just coz is legal dunt mean iz right innit, I think he said.

This goes all the way back to the first post I made on this thread. Maybe you haven't read it but some people seem incapable of understanding the point.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bluntly, you want your investors to invest in productive assets, not to shunt money around to avoid tax. That’s not productive.

Money men ought to be attracted to good investors, not low tax investors.

Decent international cooperation would help with that.

You are making assumptions about what these funds are investing in.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Back in the real world of Joe Average, I refer you to the opinions expressed on BBC Have I Got News For You of Friday last of that left wing commie pinko Henry Blofeld, he of cricket commentary fame, on the merits of Mr Hamilton's and such like tax scheme shenanigans. Just coz is legal dunt mean iz right innit, I think he said.

This goes all the way back to the first page and points others made on this thread. Maybe you haven't read it but some people seem incapable of understanding the point.

FTFY

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Have the accountants taken over yet?

Yes it’s all saying “thems the rules” without thinking about whether the rules are optimal for society.[/quote
As mentioned in my first post, if you think that the rules are sub optimal, try to get them changed. You can't have two sets of rules for the same thing, one of which is your arbitrary/subjective rule.

Or maybe a better idea is to have a more competitive tax system so that the value of, and incentive to avoid etc goes down. (If your memory stretches back a bit, I showed how cutting the CT rate increased the take from that tax and also further back how Labour's top rate income tax hike yielded nothing).

TheBigBean

The author of the IEA piece seems to have forgotten to mention that a UK based fund wouldn't be taxed on the dividends it receives, so the additional tax would be much lower. He also seems to have forgotten to mention the plethora of other fund types.

Still it is good to know that Hamilton's circular VAT avoiding lease structure was all in the name of market efficiency.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

As mentioned in my first post, if you think that the rules are sub optimal, try to get them changed. You can't have two sets of rules for the same thing, one of which is your arbitrary/subjective rule.

Where have I said anything but?

I’m just realistic enough to know some people are cheap enough to still try and dodge via weird structures and loopholes, so I encourage public pressure on those who do so, to keep pressure on these tax havens to be more transparent and to keep people quite honest.

Ultimately taxation is about public spending, so the public rightly ought to have a say on how the take occurs in order to have the spending.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

I'm not sure if this has too many big words in it for Rick and Moonchicken but it's worth a go.

https://iea.org.uk/everybody-is-outrage ... t-they-do/

PS: MF - had a full read of this now. That is a very good article and recommended reading for the 'indignant and ignorant' squad before someone kicks off about offshore centres and tax next time round.

Well I think we all try to avoid being a sesquipedalian.

Re the article:

But if the investment fund were a UK company, rather than being based in the Caribbean, it would be taxable. Investing through a fund would therefore add a 19% tax charge onto much of the investment income, even though the fund isn’t a real person, it is just a way for the investors to have their capital managed.

No more tax

So the alternative to an offshore fund would not be a UK corporate fund, which would add an additional layer of tax

So they are there to avoid being taxed again. That’s why these things exist in low tax areas, not high tax.

While it is legitimate for the businesses and the investors to be taxed, we don’t want the investment fund to be taxable itself; that would be triple taxation.

I’m fairly sure most things we pay for are at least double taxed.

When I buy anything with vat; I’ve already had my income taxed coming in and I’ll pay vat on that. And the company will have paid Corp tax on the money i helped bring in to pay my salary & bonus.

That’s just the nature of it. That’s no reason to allow it.

Instead they would make their own investments directly and, instead of a fund manager investing it for them, they would have professional advisers telling them where to invest their money.

That would not leave them paying any more UK tax than they do using the offshore fund. With the investors investing directly, the companies they invest in would still pay tax on their profits and the investors would pay tax on their investment returns, exactly the same as with the offshore investment fund, but because there would be no investment fund, there would be no-one else involved to be taxed.

So in summary, investors would avoid using professional managers because of the tax cost. But isn’t the manager providing a service?

And if that was the case, it’s just the structure that would change; the money managers would move in house instead. As they already do in a lot of instances.

The argument that the current structure would leave investors 19% tax worth poorer a) misses the point and b) assumes the structure is static. Presumably the structure has come to exist as a result of current tax conditions.

Only an offshore investment fund can draw in capital from many investors all over the world, creating a large enough pot to employ specialists to manage it, and therefore get vital investment to difficult places where it is really needed.

I don’t buy this. You HAVE to have an offshore structure to run money from different nations? Really????

What the article misses is how often money that would otherwise be put to better use is squirrelled away from countries.

If the article is correct, why does evidence from studies by the IMF, & other reputable organisations, point to offshore tax havens being quite costly for developing countries? The article is all theory and no evidence.




I[/quote]
The higher returns from funds such as that are eventually taxed when the investments/profits are realised by the investors, in the country where the investors are resident. Effectively it defers the tax to a later date but allows compounding to do its stuff.

Also you also seem to be ignoring the stated commercial benefits.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As mentioned in my first post, if you think that the rules are sub optimal, try to get them changed. You can't have two sets of rules for the same thing, one of which is your arbitrary/subjective rule.

Where have I said anything but?

I’m just realistic enough to know some people are cheap enough to still try and dodge via weird structures and loopholes, so I encourage public pressure on those who do so, to keep pressure on these tax havens to be more transparent and to keep people quite honest.

Ultimately taxation is about public spending, so the public rightly ought to have a say on how the take occurs in order to have the spending.

What is 'weird' about the funds described in that link?

You seem to be coming at this with the preconception that it is all murky and dishonest. Simply not the case.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean wrote:

The author of the IEA piece seems to have forgotten to mention that a UK based fund wouldn't be taxed on the dividends it receives, so the additional tax would be much lower. He also seems to have forgotten to mention the plethora of other fund types.

Still it is good to know that Hamilton's circular VAT avoiding lease structure was all in the name of market efficiency.

A UK fund would be taxed on most other forms of income however.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As mentioned in my first post, if you think that the rules are sub optimal, try to get them changed. You can't have two sets of rules for the same thing, one of which is your arbitrary/subjective rule.

Where have I said anything but?

I’m just realistic enough to know some people are cheap enough to still try and dodge via weird structures and loopholes, so I encourage public pressure on those who do so, to keep pressure on these tax havens to be more transparent and to keep people quite honest.

Ultimately taxation is about public spending, so the public rightly ought to have a say on how the take occurs in order to have the spending.

What is 'weird' about the funds described in that link?

You seem to be coming at this with the preconception that it is all murky and dishonest. Simply not the case.

Much higher propensity for murky money to be found in tax havens. They go hand in hand with a genuine lack of transparency.