Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

Matthewfalle

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well my colleagues at the time placed one of their traders and when he sent out the announcement they gave us a heavy smack down because we didn’t refer to them as brokers.

Well, this I don't believe instantly because Rick has previously proven that he does not work in any form the the finance industry, so none if his colleagues could have done this because of none of his colleagues work in the finance industry.

After a quick skim read it still seems that people still don't understand how a tax haven or offshore investments work.

Stevo- am I correct in this?

Are you still in a huff about the name calling several pages back?

no - its just that if you are attempting to debate a topic then you shouldn't be saying something you aren't: it belittles your argument is fairly rude to people like Stevo who work - and who have studied and worked very hard to get to where they are - in the industry.

So being rude about Rick's job is what then? Payback? As you say, it's belittling your argument.

Anyway. Stevo has made the point that countries adjust their tax rates to draw in more business and tax income. Fair enough - I can see why, you'd want to undercut the competition by a few percent but how does that work when a country sets their tax rate at zero? What do they - the country - get out of it beyond a few people renting offices?

It's not just renting a few office spaces - on the building side you have investment in buildings, support staff, all manners of instrastructure. The construction I dustry gets huge contracts providing work to hundreds.

You're then attracting lots of very well paid people into the area and the haven as a whole - massive amounts of money flying acting around, people spunkibg it on houses, cars, meals, etc and, as with the nature of the industry, most people are trying to keep up with Jones' so massive spending.

The guys and gals who actually devise these things earn shed loads and are the sort of people you want - professional, wealthy, intelligent, good tastes. The guys who push the paper - well, they just have a lot of money.

Think about what needs to be done to support this - car sales, shops, supermarkets, restaurants, bars, etc. Hospitality thrives where there is money and there is a lot floating around.

Then you have the political and economic cachet for these places being tax havens.

Let me continue this in a bit ...

Matthewfalle

Then, add in the taxes these guys pay - income, stamp duty, VAT equivs, etc - the tourism generated by the havens generally being nice places, company registry annual fees, set up fees, stock exchange fees, it all adds up to millions.

It's not shady dealings in back street street second storey offices guys or a few rented offices.

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why d'ya defend tax havens?

What's the macro benefit of them?

firstly - apols for the spelling in this post - am tapping on a telephone.

i thonk the first problem is that you don't understand what a tax haven is - you seem to have a view thst has been formed by reading certain newspapers, discussing the topic will ill informed and misunderstanding people and a lack of personal knowledge.

Well let's take investopedia as a starter for 10.

A tax haven is a country that offers foreign individuals and businesses a minimal tax liability in a politically and economically stable environment, with little or no financial information shared with foreign tax authorities. Tax havens do not require individuals to reside in or businesses to operate out of their countries to benefit from local tax policies. Due to the globalization of business operations, an increasing number of U.S. corporations, including Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet, are keeping cash in offshore tax havens to minimize corporate taxes.
we still don't actually know what you think s tax haven is as you haven't posted despite being asked a number of times.

Read more: Tax Haven https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/ta ... z4yLbTl7PZ

basically, the capitalist model needs several different types of marketplace - physical, economic and theoretical. The demand for a philosophical market place is also debatable.

What on earth are you on about.

tax havens provide the market place for the economic market - there are absoloutely no boundaries to entry, they are accesible to everyone and are legally governed through d
statute both single and multijurisdictional.

the structures they use, the banking systems investment schemes etc are all rrgulated and transparency laws are in place. theres nothing secret about them.

That's not strictly true. There is a big push for more transparency in these havens, hence the leaks. They are getting better at it, as a result of public pressure and pressure from organisations like the EU.

tax havens are just a simple small place to find everything you need to mansge your money - banks, lawyers, inv managers etc. all legal, above board, etc - you have to accept this unfortunately otherwise they would all be blacklisted: which they aren't.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. The issue is they're providing firms and wealthy individuals an opportunity to bypass tax they would normally pay. The advantage the haven actually receives is relatively disputed (see the article I posted from the FT, "The case against Luxembourg" - I even quoted the relevant bits). The cost, is fairly obvious. Missed tax revenue. This problem is particularly acute in developing nations where a) leaders have a propensity to earn outrageously vast sums and squirrel them away rather than plow them back into building the nation and b) where lower productivity means there are big shortfalls the amount of state spending required, so the cost of missed revenue is proportionally greater per tax dollar lost.

bear in mind that London is a pretty good tax haven for property structures: the people who own the flat you rent undoubtedly own it through an offshore company.

a) it's a scandal that London is that, for the reasons stated above, and b) my landlord only owns one property, and it's the one I live in, and I've seen the deeds (for long and boring reasons) and they're in his name.

its all extremely simple but you seem unable to understand/accept it.

I think you miss the point. YOu're confusing a criticism of the existence of them, and questioning what actual economic value they add, with denying they exist.

on a macro basis - you don't define whether this is worldwide orover the jurisdiction -.

macro - adjective - meaning 2. adjective
adjective: macro
large-scale; overall.
"the analysis of social events at the macro level"

So, to avoid confusing you, by macro I mean, taking everything into account, tax havens are costly and not value additive.

letap73

Jesus - Goo should be confined to the nine circles of hell - for starting this and the Brexit thread

pinno

From the Tax Justice network:

"HSBC in $700m of trouble

The latest accounts of HSBC reveal some interesting insights into the ongoing tax haven related criminal issues facing the company. Bloomberg BNA reveal that in June the company was placed under a formal criminal investigation by the Belgian authorities, in relation to revelations from the Swiss-leaks case.

In total the bank has set aside the best part of one billion dollars to deal with tax-related investigations, and the bank is also being investigated for its role in the Panama Papers. In total 2,300 companies in the data leak were under the control of HSBC.

Speaking of the Panama Papers, this week it was revealed that the company at the centre of the leak, Mossack Fonseca, has been all but wiped out by the scandal. The company has had to close the vast majority of its offices, and has just 6 left, as opposed to the 45 it had before the leak started."

An interesting question:

Why are we allowing individuals and companies to live, operate, and enjoy the safety, beauty, stability, infrastructure and welfare state of one country, while they’re fiscally resident elsewhere?

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why d'ya defend tax havens?

What's the macro benefit of them?

firstly - apols for the spelling in this post - am tapping on a telephone.

i thonk the first problem is that you don't understand what a tax haven is - you seem to have a view thst has been formed by reading certain newspapers, discussing the topic will ill informed and misunderstanding people and a lack of personal knowledge.

Well let's take investopedia as a starter for 10.

A tax haven is a country that offers foreign individuals and businesses a minimal tax liability in a politically and economically stable environment, with little or no financial information shared with foreign tax authorities. Tax havens do not require individuals to reside in or businesses to operate out of their countries to benefit from local tax policies. Due to the globalization of business operations, an increasing number of U.S. corporations, including Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet, are keeping cash in offshore tax havens to minimize corporate taxes.
we still don't actually know what you think s tax haven is as you haven't posted despite being asked a number of times.

Read more: Tax Haven https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/ta ... z4yLbTl7PZ

basically, the capitalist model needs several different types of marketplace - physical, economic and theoretical. The demand for a philosophical market place is also debatable.

What on earth are you on about.

tax havens provide the market place for the economic market - there are absoloutely no boundaries to entry, they are accesible to everyone and are legally governed through d
statute both single and multijurisdictional.

the structures they use, the banking systems investment schemes etc are all rrgulated and transparency laws are in place. theres nothing secret about them.

That's not strictly true. There is a big push for more transparency in these havens, hence the leaks. They are getting better at it, as a result of public pressure and pressure from organisations like the EU.

tax havens are just a simple small place to find everything you need to mansge your money - banks, lawyers, inv managers etc. all legal, above board, etc - you have to accept this unfortunately otherwise they would all be blacklisted: which they aren't.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. The issue is they're providing firms and wealthy individuals an opportunity to bypass tax they would normally pay. The advantage the haven actually receives is relatively disputed (see the article I posted from the FT, "The case against Luxembourg" - I even quoted the relevant bits). The cost, is fairly obvious. Missed tax revenue. This problem is particularly acute in developing nations where a) leaders have a propensity to earn outrageously vast sums and squirrel them away rather than plow them back into building the nation and b) where lower productivity means there are big shortfalls the amount of state spending required, so the cost of missed revenue is proportionally greater per tax dollar lost.

bear in mind that London is a pretty good tax haven for property structures: the people who own the flat you rent undoubtedly own it through an offshore company.

a) it's a scandal that London is that, for the reasons stated above, and b) my landlord only owns one property, and it's the one I live in, and I've seen the deeds (for long and boring reasons) and they're in his name.

its all extremely simple but you seem unable to understand/accept it.

I think you miss the point. YOu're confusing a criticism of the existence of them, and questioning what actual economic value they add, with denying they exist.

on a macro basis - you don't define whether this is worldwide orover the jurisdiction -.

macro - adjective - meaning 2. adjective
adjective: macro
large-scale; overall.
"the analysis of social events at the macro level"

So, to avoid confusing you, by macro I mean, taking everything into account, tax havens are costly and not value additive.

But they are value additive and that's the point you fail to see/accept.

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

From the Tax Justice network:

"HSBC in $700m of trouble

The latest accounts of HSBC reveal some interesting insights into the ongoing tax haven related criminal issues facing the company. Bloomberg BNA reveal that in June the company was placed under a formal criminal investigation by the Belgian authorities, in relation to revelations from the Swiss-leaks case.

In total the bank has set aside the best part of one billion dollars to deal with tax-related investigations, and the bank is also being investigated for its role in the Panama Papers. In total 2,300 companies in the data leak were under the control of HSBC.

Speaking of the Panama Papers, this week it was revealed that the company at the centre of the leak, Mossack Fonseca, has been all but wiped out by the scandal. The company has had to close the vast majority of its offices, and has just 6 left, as opposed to the 45 it had before the leak started."

An interesting question:

Why are we allowing individuals and companies to live, operate, and enjoy the safety, beauty, stability, infrastructure and welfare state of one country, while they’re fiscally resident elsewhere?

Why not should be the question? Why should people be tied to the same country their money is in?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why d'ya defend tax havens?

What's the macro benefit of them?

firstly - apols for the spelling in this post - am tapping on a telephone.

i thonk the first problem is that you don't understand what a tax haven is - you seem to have a view thst has been formed by reading certain newspapers, discussing the topic will ill informed and misunderstanding people and a lack of personal knowledge.

Well let's take investopedia as a starter for 10.

A tax haven is a country that offers foreign individuals and businesses a minimal tax liability in a politically and economically stable environment, with little or no financial information shared with foreign tax authorities. Tax havens do not require individuals to reside in or businesses to operate out of their countries to benefit from local tax policies. Due to the globalization of business operations, an increasing number of U.S. corporations, including Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet, are keeping cash in offshore tax havens to minimize corporate taxes.
we still don't actually know what you think s tax haven is as you haven't posted despite being asked a number of times.

Read more: Tax Haven https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/ta ... z4yLbTl7PZ

basically, the capitalist model needs several different types of marketplace - physical, economic and theoretical. The demand for a philosophical market place is also debatable.

What on earth are you on about.

tax havens provide the market place for the economic market - there are absoloutely no boundaries to entry, they are accesible to everyone and are legally governed through d
statute both single and multijurisdictional.

the structures they use, the banking systems investment schemes etc are all rrgulated and transparency laws are in place. theres nothing secret about them.

That's not strictly true. There is a big push for more transparency in these havens, hence the leaks. They are getting better at it, as a result of public pressure and pressure from organisations like the EU.

tax havens are just a simple small place to find everything you need to mansge your money - banks, lawyers, inv managers etc. all legal, above board, etc - you have to accept this unfortunately otherwise they would all be blacklisted: which they aren't.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. The issue is they're providing firms and wealthy individuals an opportunity to bypass tax they would normally pay. The advantage the haven actually receives is relatively disputed (see the article I posted from the FT, "The case against Luxembourg" - I even quoted the relevant bits). The cost, is fairly obvious. Missed tax revenue. This problem is particularly acute in developing nations where a) leaders have a propensity to earn outrageously vast sums and squirrel them away rather than plow them back into building the nation and b) where lower productivity means there are big shortfalls the amount of state spending required, so the cost of missed revenue is proportionally greater per tax dollar lost.

bear in mind that London is a pretty good tax haven for property structures: the people who own the flat you rent undoubtedly own it through an offshore company.

a) it's a scandal that London is that, for the reasons stated above, and b) my landlord only owns one property, and it's the one I live in, and I've seen the deeds (for long and boring reasons) and they're in his name.

its all extremely simple but you seem unable to understand/accept it.

I think you miss the point. YOu're confusing a criticism of the existence of them, and questioning what actual economic value they add, with denying they exist.

on a macro basis - you don't define whether this is worldwide orover the jurisdiction -.

macro - adjective - meaning 2. adjective
adjective: macro
large-scale; overall.
"the analysis of social events at the macro level"

So, to avoid confusing you, by macro I mean, taking everything into account, tax havens are costly and not value additive.

So you didn't read what me Hoppy and I posted about the various disclosure and information sharing regs that make a mockery of your claims of secrecy and murkiness?

You seem to be unable to say what is being lost to the UK but despite this you're very unhappy about it. Also you seem totally unaware of the preventative measures in place but you somehow are able conclude that they are not enough.

Care to explain what the gaps in the various anti avoidance regs that I posted above?

As for what is a tax haven, how about these countries and their corporate tax rates; where do you draw the line?
Poland 19%
Singapore 17%
Hong Kong 16.5%
Serbia 15%
Ireland 12.5%
Cyprus 12.5%
Bulgaria 10%
Hungary 9%
Uzbekistan 7.5%
And UK 19% (17% in 2020)

As for the value add, it is the value add for those countries - their prosperity and those of their citizens. (Oh, and the higher returns for investors). You seem to be under the impression that these places need to be performing some sort of 'social utility' for other countries - why is that? Countries have to look after their own interests. If I were the government of a smal island with few natural resources and a choice of being reliant mainly on tourism & griculture to scrape a living, or to attract international investment and finance/professional services business etc and have a prosperous small nation, I know what I would do.

And despite explaining the reality of tax competition more than once, you seem to be unable to grasp this point. Most countries do it to some extent - I see this on my job on a regular basis.

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pinno wrote:

From the Tax Justice network:

"HSBC in $700m of trouble

The latest accounts of HSBC reveal some interesting insights into the ongoing tax haven related criminal issues facing the company. Bloomberg BNA reveal that in June the company was placed under a formal criminal investigation by the Belgian authorities, in relation to revelations from the Swiss-leaks case.

In total the bank has set aside the best part of one billion dollars to deal with tax-related investigations, and the bank is also being investigated for its role in the Panama Papers. In total 2,300 companies in the data leak were under the control of HSBC.

Speaking of the Panama Papers, this week it was revealed that the company at the centre of the leak, Mossack Fonseca, has been all but wiped out by the scandal. The company has had to close the vast majority of its offices, and has just 6 left, as opposed to the 45 it had before the leak started."

An interesting question:

Why are we allowing individuals and companies to live, operate, and enjoy the safety, beauty, stability, infrastructure and welfare state of one country, while they’re fiscally resident elsewhere?

Why not should be the question? Why should people be tied to the same country their money is in?

You have not made any reference to the rest of the post.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

An interesting question:

Why are we allowing individuals and companies to live, operate, and enjoy the safety, beauty, stability, infrastructure and welfare state of one country, while they’re fiscally resident elsewhere?

How does that happen then?

A person or company is tax resident in a country if that is where they live/operate.

Give us an example.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

An interesting question:

Why are we allowing individuals and companies to live, operate, and enjoy the safety, beauty, stability, infrastructure and welfare state of one country, while they’re fiscally resident elsewhere?

How does that happen then?

A person or company is tax resident in a country if that is where they live/operate.

Give us an example.

http://www.taxjustice.net/2017/11/10/pa ... ch-famous/

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

From the Tax Justice network:

"HSBC in $700m of trouble

The latest accounts of HSBC reveal some interesting insights into the ongoing tax haven related criminal issues facing the company. Bloomberg BNA reveal that in June the company was placed under a formal criminal investigation by the Belgian authorities, in relation to revelations from the Swiss-leaks case.

In total the bank has set aside the best part of one billion dollars to deal with tax-related investigations, and the bank is also being investigated for its role in the Panama Papers. In total 2,300 companies in the data leak were under the control of HSBC.

Largely historical, like a lot of the Paradise papers stuff:
https://www.ft.com/content/d61a5a44-08a3-11e6-b6d3-746f8e9cdd33

Remember, some of the info in the Paradise papers go back to 1950. Much of it probably closed down already. But it doesn't stop the rather predictable knee-jerk sh1t storm of indignation from those who already have pre-conceived ideas about what is happening and a limited understanding of tax :roll:

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

An interesting question:

Why are we allowing individuals and companies to live, operate, and enjoy the safety, beauty, stability, infrastructure and welfare state of one country, while they’re fiscally resident elsewhere?

How does that happen then?

A person or company is tax resident in a country if that is where they live/operate.

Give us an example.

http://www.taxjustice.net/2017/11/10/pa ... ch-famous/

Well knock me over with a feather. Caribbean islands charging rich foreigners for citizenship. Nothing new there. But if the individuals concerned spend over a certain amount of time in their original country, they will still be taxable there. So it it is not a case of someone living in one place and paying tax in another.

They even admit "We don’t know whether tax was a reason Shakira opted for Bahamian residency." That said, its a free world and if someone wants to live on a Caribbean island to enjoy zero taxation then that's up to them.

The 'tax justice network' is just another NGO profoundly biased against those nasty rich people and big bad corporates.

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

Then, add in the taxes these guys pay - income, stamp duty, VAT equivs, etc - the tourism generated by the havens generally being nice places, company registry annual fees, set up fees, stock exchange fees, it all adds up to millions.

It's not shady dealings in back street street second storey offices guys or a few rented offices.

This all sounds a bit like Cornwall on steroids. Very pretty; lots of wealthy people popping in and out, and not a great deal of the money getting left behind. When the BVI were in the news recently, I wasn't struck by the opulence of the place. Sure you can argue that the place would be a lot worse off without the financial services, but it does make you wonder whether they couldn't extract just a little more from the passing trade while still maintaining their competitive edge. I'm wondering why they need to set some of their tax rates at zero when surely just a bit lower than the competition would do.

pinno

Because all corporations are such lovely organisations? FFS Stevo, you're not that naive are you?

Off the top of my head:

Monsanto.
Union Carbide
Enron
Exxon Mobil
Deepwater Horizon...
Never mind all the contracting out of labour (to sweat shops that sometimes go up in smoke).
..and the companies who are contracted to build stadia in Qatar where the conditions of work are appalling, which leads to FIFA
...and the companies making Nicotinoid based chemicals who made sure the trials of the chemical that were banned temporarily were cut short by political pressure - the main detractor was the UK.
Name every large Pharmaceutical company on the planet. Let's just put Bayer right up there for their 'ethical' standards and pricing which prevents people from receiving generic drugs at a reasonable price and so therefore cannot afford them so they die.

...and so on and so on. Large corporations are far too big and far too powerful and will influence policy where they can.

You cannot simply put everything under a banner of 'it's legal, therefore it's not a question of morality". You cannot deny the rising global inequality where the vast majority of wealth is owned by a tiny percentage as an unavoidable by product of capitalism and convince ourself of the 'trickle down effect', all within a framework of apparent transparency and legitimacy coupled with x, y and z trading laws. The problem is that whilst the trickle down effect is exactly what it is - a 'trickle' but not much else.

...and before you jump on the 'you're an anti-capitalist and I do not see the benefits of capitalism' bandwagon; i'm not anti-capitalist but i'm not so stupid as to accept that the current global status quo is what it is and should not be challenged.
Back to this subject. There has to be total transparency in all off shore transactions for me to believe that all of it is legitimate. The way you are harping on about the legitimacy of Tax Havens, smacks of someone blinkered by the simultaneous legitimacy of the creation of wealth and prosperity as if we can dismiss the small percentage of illegitimate practices as non-consequential or insignificant.
The example I gave regarding HSBC and Mossack Fonseca shows you that large corporations are worried and that they are probably doing things that might be legitimate but they way they shift money around using 'aggressive avoidance' techniques to me is the tip of the iceberg rather than your contrary, opposite opinion.

If governments move to squeeze tax havens to death, will I care that LH suddenly has x million less to live on? No. Even if that is unfair in your eyes or his eyes or in the eyes of the very wealthy.
There are obscene differences in wealth and if you see that as somehow for the greater good and that helps global prosperity and advancement, then I do not know what bubble you live in because what is totally clear and unequivocal is that tax havens are primarily used by the very wealthy and corporations, not the average man in the street. It's not just a coincidence.

I've asked you this before. If Starbucks derive say £100m in profits in the UK,why shouldn't they should be taxed at the current rate of corporation tax (19%?)? If Apple derive £200m in profits from their activities in the UK, they should be charged 19% of that. Why not? Surely import duties would make Apple products uncompetitive if they served the UK market by export?
I cite Apple because they have come under heavy criticism for their aggressive tax avoidance tactics and use of Tax Havens are a critical vessel for those tactics.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why d'ya defend tax havens?

What's the macro benefit of them?

firstly - apols for the spelling in this post - am tapping on a telephone.

i thonk the first problem is that you don't understand what a tax haven is - you seem to have a view thst has been formed by reading certain newspapers, discussing the topic will ill informed and misunderstanding people and a lack of personal knowledge.

Well let's take investopedia as a starter for 10.

A tax haven is a country that offers foreign individuals and businesses a minimal tax liability in a politically and economically stable environment, with little or no financial information shared with foreign tax authorities. Tax havens do not require individuals to reside in or businesses to operate out of their countries to benefit from local tax policies. Due to the globalization of business operations, an increasing number of U.S. corporations, including Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet, are keeping cash in offshore tax havens to minimize corporate taxes.
we still don't actually know what you think s tax haven is as you haven't posted despite being asked a number of times.

Read more: Tax Haven https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/ta ... z4yLbTl7PZ

basically, the capitalist model needs several different types of marketplace - physical, economic and theoretical. The demand for a philosophical market place is also debatable.

What on earth are you on about.

tax havens provide the market place for the economic market - there are absoloutely no boundaries to entry, they are accesible to everyone and are legally governed through d
statute both single and multijurisdictional.

the structures they use, the banking systems investment schemes etc are all rrgulated and transparency laws are in place. theres nothing secret about them.

That's not strictly true. There is a big push for more transparency in these havens, hence the leaks. They are getting better at it, as a result of public pressure and pressure from organisations like the EU.

tax havens are just a simple small place to find everything you need to mansge your money - banks, lawyers, inv managers etc. all legal, above board, etc - you have to accept this unfortunately otherwise they would all be blacklisted: which they aren't.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. The issue is they're providing firms and wealthy individuals an opportunity to bypass tax they would normally pay. The advantage the haven actually receives is relatively disputed (see the article I posted from the FT, "The case against Luxembourg" - I even quoted the relevant bits). The cost, is fairly obvious. Missed tax revenue. This problem is particularly acute in developing nations where a) leaders have a propensity to earn outrageously vast sums and squirrel them away rather than plow them back into building the nation and b) where lower productivity means there are big shortfalls the amount of state spending required, so the cost of missed revenue is proportionally greater per tax dollar lost.

bear in mind that London is a pretty good tax haven for property structures: the people who own the flat you rent undoubtedly own it through an offshore company.

a) it's a scandal that London is that, for the reasons stated above, and b) my landlord only owns one property, and it's the one I live in, and I've seen the deeds (for long and boring reasons) and they're in his name.

its all extremely simple but you seem unable to understand/accept it.

I think you miss the point. YOu're confusing a criticism of the existence of them, and questioning what actual economic value they add, with denying they exist.

on a macro basis - you don't define whether this is worldwide orover the jurisdiction -.

macro - adjective - meaning 2. adjective
adjective: macro
large-scale; overall.
"the analysis of social events at the macro level"

So, to avoid confusing you, by macro I mean, taking everything into account, tax havens are costly and not value additive.

What do you mean "what are you on about"? I don't understand what you don't understand. I thought you said that that you were familiar with this subject, although it seems blatantly obvious you're not......... this is base level terminology we're talking about - I did GCSE economics back I the day of blackboards and OHP and we discussed this.

And fine, do a Google and post links (which I am not sure sure you understand) but what is your definition of a tax haven? You fail to post this, just going into the link that Pinno posts a few days ago and reposting it. I think we are all intrigued to see what you think things are in your own words - after all the rest of us in this discussion seem able to grasp varying concepts and transfer them.

I think that what you are failing to grasp is that there is no reason why there should be an international/interjusrisdictional (I can define that term if you want - let me know) macro benefit to anything at all, let alone forming an interdependence on fiscal and taxation based revenue. After all France doesn't expect to receive a piece of Italy's pro patria contributions does it?

Matthewfalle

You also seem to go on about transparency - there is transparency, this is held in statute and legislation which is why everything is declared. There are very few places now where there is complete secrecy and these tend to be blacklisted and therefore it's a nightmare to do business with them.

How much transparency do you want? If you're so keen on it do you want to pop all your financial details on here for us to examine or does it only count for those who have more money than you? Seems like a hybrid mixture of jealousy and ignorance.

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

You also seem to go on about transparency - there is transparency, this is held in statute and legislation which is why everything is declared. There are very few places now where there is complete secrecy and these tend to be blacklisted and therefore it's a nightmare to do business with them.

How much transparency do you want? If you're so keen on it do you want to pop all your financial details on here for us to examine or does it only count for those who have more money than you? Seems like a hybrid mixture of jealousy and ignorance.

As that FT article mentioned, laundering is just as big if not a bigger problem in the City, as it is offshore. There's obviously a lot that has been done to tighten things up as Stevo has listed, although that does indicate that lack of transparency was a problem in the not too distant past.

You're right: things don't have to have some global net benefit to humanity to exist, but everything has consequences. It may well be all a matter of ill-informed perception that those people and organisations that make use of tax havens (we do all seem to agree that they exist if not what they are) are 'getting away with something', but unfortunately that is what counts and when its ignored, someone will capitalise on that discontent, and you end up with people like Trump being elected.

pinno

Global markets are very competitive.
Share price is key to short and long term stability.
Shareholders are fickle.
Maximise profits, share value and dividend yield.

At any cost. That is the bottom line.

Find a 'decent' accountancy service to facilitate the profits.

http://www.taxjustice.net/2017/11/13/bi ... arch-says/

...and no one in commerce would care to admit that it is a model that promotes profit above all else and that larger corporations are leeches on tax systems and become parasitical in the effort to keep driving profits upwards.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

You also seem to go on about transparency - there is transparency, this is held in statute and legislation which is why everything is declared. There are very few places now where there is complete secrecy and these tend to be blacklisted and therefore it's a nightmare to do business with them.

How much transparency do you want? If you're so keen on it do you want to pop all your financial details on here for us to examine or does it only count for those who have more money than you? Seems like a hybrid mixture of jealousy and ignorance.

As that FT article mentioned, laundering is just as big if not a bigger problem in the City, as it is offshore. There's obviously a lot that has been done to tighten things up as Stevo has listed, although that does indicate that lack of transparency was a problem in the not too distant past.

You're right: things don't have to have some global net benefit to humanity to exist, but everything has consequences. It may well be all a matter of ill-informed perception that those people and organisations that make use of tax havens (we do all seem to agree that they exist if not what they are) are 'getting away with something', but unfortunately that is what counts and when its ignored, someone will capitalise on that discontent, and you end up with people like Trump being elected.

That's a large jump rjs but it seems to be the case that if it is legal, it's legitimate.

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

You also seem to go on about transparency - there is transparency, this is held in statute and legislation which is why everything is declared. There are very few places now where there is complete secrecy and these tend to be blacklisted and therefore it's a nightmare to do business with them.

How much transparency do you want? If you're so keen on it do you want to pop all your financial details on here for us to examine or does it only count for those who have more money than you? Seems like a hybrid mixture of jealousy and ignorance.

As that FT article mentioned, laundering is just as big if not a bigger problem in the City, as it is offshore. There's obviously a lot that has been done to tighten things up as Stevo has listed, although that does indicate that lack of transparency was a problem in the not too distant past.

You're right: things don't have to have some global net benefit to humanity to exist, but everything has consequences. It may well be all a matter of ill-informed perception that those people and organisations that make use of tax havens (we do all seem to agree that they exist if not what they are) are 'getting away with something', but unfortunately that is what counts and when its ignored, someone will capitalise on that discontent, and you end up with people like Trump being elected.

That's a large jump rjs but it seems to be the case that if it is legal, it's legitimate.

Not sure it is: the perception that the Liberal Metropolitan Elite® is rigging the system for its benefit was pushed relentlessly by the Trump campaign. Whether that idea has any basis in reality is almost beside the point.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Because all corporations are such lovely organisations? FFS Stevo, you're not that naive are you?

Off the top of my head:

Monsanto.
Union Carbide
Enron
Exxon Mobil
Deepwater Horizon...
Never mind all the contracting out of labour (to sweat shops that sometimes go up in smoke).
..and the companies who are contracted to build stadia in Qatar where the conditions of work are appalling, which leads to FIFA
...and the companies making Nicotinoid based chemicals who made sure the trials of the chemical that were banned temporarily were cut short by political pressure - the main detractor was the UK.
Name every large Pharmaceutical company on the planet. Let's just put Bayer right up there for their 'ethical' standards and pricing which prevents people from receiving generic drugs at a reasonable price and so therefore cannot afford them so they die.

...and so on and so on. Large corporations are far too big and far too powerful and will influence policy where they can.

Very interesting but what has that got to do with tax? I was referring to the ill-informed perception held by some that all corporates are bad citizens when it comes to tax.

Pinno wrote:

You cannot simply put everything under a banner of 'it's legal, therefore it's not a question of morality". You cannot deny the rising global inequality where the vast majority of wealth is owned by a tiny percentage as an unavoidable by product of capitalism and convince ourself of the 'trickle down effect', all within a framework of apparent transparency and legitimacy coupled with x, y and z trading laws. The problem is that whilst the trickle down effect is exactly what it is - a 'trickle' but not much else.

...and before you jump on the 'you're an anti-capitalist and I do not see the benefits of capitalism' bandwagon; i'm not anti-capitalist but i'm not so stupid as to accept that the current global status quo is what it is and should not be challenged.
Back to this subject. There has to be total transparency in all off shore transactions for me to believe that all of it is legitimate. The way you are harping on about the legitimacy of Tax Havens, smacks of someone blinkered by the simultaneous legitimacy of the creation of wealth and prosperity as if we can dismiss the small percentage of illegitimate practices as non-consequential or insignificant.
The example I gave regarding HSBC and Mossack Fonseca shows you that large corporations are worried and that they are probably doing things that might be legitimate but they way they shift money around using 'aggressive avoidance' techniques to me is the tip of the iceberg rather than your contrary, opposite opinion.

Sounds like you are swallowing NGO propaganda a bit too easily. Global inequality has reduced as a result of global captialism.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt-want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/
But in any event thats a wider point than just tax. So your point is what?

The example you gave above (as I mentioned already) is largely historical and most of this stuff does not work any more. Hoppy posted the same thing over in BB.

Pinno wrote:

If governments move to squeeze tax havens to death, will I care that LH suddenly has x million less to live on? No. Even if that is unfair in your eyes or his eyes or in the eyes of the very wealthy.
There are obscene differences in wealth and if you see that as somehow for the greater good and that helps global prosperity and advancement, then I do not know what bubble you live in because what is totally clear and unequivocal is that tax havens are primarily used by the very wealthy and corporations, not the average man in the street. It's not just a coincidence.

Simply because some things which have a legitimate purpose can be abused doesn't mean you ban them. Kitchen knives can be used to stab people but there's no call to make them illegal, for example. Cars can be used to run someone over but we don't ban them do we.

And why would someone who doesn't pay much tax need to use a tax haven? :roll:

Pinno wrote:

I've asked you this before. If Starbucks derive say £100m in profits in the UK,why shouldn't they should be taxed at the current rate of corporation tax (19%?)? If Apple derive £200m in profits from their activities in the UK, they should be charged 19% of that. Why not? Surely import duties would make Apple products uncompetitive if they served the UK market by export?
I cite Apple because they have come under heavy criticism for their aggressive tax avoidance tactics and use of Tax Havens are a critical vessel for those tactics.

Because according to the law in pretty much every country, not just the UK, taxable profit is different from accounting profit for starters. You start with accounting profit and then adjust for numerous items such as capital allowances, brought forward tax losses, non-deductible expenses, non taxable income such as dividends. It is perfectly feasible to make a large UK accounting profit and not pay UK tax - even without tax planning.

Then there's transfer pricing which determines how much value add and risk sits where and how much return/profit is earned where. And deferred tax which is only an accounting entry. Etc etc. Go read up more if you want, it's a complex area.

Unlikely that import duties on Apple kit would impact as pretty much all of it is zero rated for customs duty under the WTO ITA (information Technology Agreement). Besides, their kit is manufactured outside the UK and imported so it would not change the import duty position whether they were set up in the UK or not.

What numbers do you have for Apples tax and profit numbers in the UK?

Maybe also have a read about Apple's side of the story:
https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2017/11/the-facts-about-apple-tax-payments/
Did you know that they are the largest taxpayer on the planet? The bastards!

Anyhow, I'm off to The Netherlands (that well known tax haven if you believe certain NGO's) shortly to recruit a new minion
https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/netherlands-tax-haven

Ben6899

letap73 wrote:

Jesus - Goo should be confined to the nine circles of hell - for starting this and the Brexit thread

He lives in Verwood. That's pretty close.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Global markets are very competitive.
Share price is key to short and long term stability.
Shareholders are fickle.
Maximise profits, share value and dividend yield.

At any cost. That is the bottom line.

Find a 'decent' accountancy service to facilitate the profits.

http://www.taxjustice.net/2017/11/13/bi ... arch-says/

...and no one in commerce would care to admit that it is a model that promotes profit above all else and that larger corporations are leeches on tax systems and become parasitical in the effort to keep driving profits upwards.

Large corporations leeches on the system? I'm calling leftiebollox on that one:
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html

They make massive contributions to the finances of this country - and rising.

Ironic that most people who refer to large corporates like this are usually net beneficiaries of the state themselves...

arthur_scrimshaw

Conflicting facts on the Oxfam page - the second paragraph of the Netherlands article states
'With its tax policy, the Netherlands perpetuates poverty and extreme inequality in the world - a world in which the richest 62 people now own as much as the poorest half of the global population.'
The further down the page on another link it states ' Today, 8 individuals have the same wealth as the poorest half the people on our planet. It is time to bring an end to inequality. It is time to Even it up!'

Either way it's a stark comparison but not helping Oxfam's case with inconsistencies?

TheBigBean

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I've asked you this before. If Starbucks derive say £100m in profits in the UK,why shouldn't they should be taxed at the current rate of corporation tax (19%?)? If Apple derive £200m in profits from their activities in the UK, they should be charged 19% of that. Why not? Surely import duties would make Apple products uncompetitive if they served the UK market by export?
I cite Apple because they have come under heavy criticism for their aggressive tax avoidance tactics and use of Tax Havens are a critical vessel for those tactics.

Because according to the law in pretty much every country, not just the UK, taxable profit is different from accounting profit for starters. You start with accounting profit and then adjust for numerous items such as capital allowances, brought forward tax losses, non-deductible expenses, non taxable income such as dividends. It is perfectly feasible to make a large UK accounting profit and not pay UK tax - even without tax planning.

Then there's transfer pricing which determines how much value add and risk sits where and how much return/profit is earned where. And deferred tax which is only an accounting entry. Etc etc. Go read up more if you want, it's a complex area.

Sure accounting profit and taxable profit are different, but I'd bet the reason that Starbucks pays very little tax is due to allocating lots of the profit to a low tax jurisdiction. I think in Starbucks case, they don't even book an accounting profit. They are essentially running themselves on a charitable basis as there is very little other reason for their presence in the UK.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Global markets are very competitive.
Share price is key to short and long term stability.
Shareholders are fickle.
Maximise profits, share value and dividend yield.

At any cost. That is the bottom line.

Find a 'decent' accountancy service to facilitate the profits.

http://www.taxjustice.net/2017/11/13/bi ... arch-says/

...and no one in commerce would care to admit that it is a model that promotes profit above all else and that larger corporations are leeches on tax systems and become parasitical in the effort to keep driving profits upwards.

Large corporations leeches on the system? I'm calling leftiebollox on that one:
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html

They make massive contributions to the finances of this country - and rising.

Ironic that most people who refer to large corporates like this are usually net beneficiaries of the state themselves...

i m not, so can i comment?

whats the total profit of these companies? without that, cant say if the burden on the avg employee earning 33k and paying 12k in taxes is "fair" let alone leftiebollox lol

Conidering how much ftse directors have seen their pay shoot up, i d hope too that their companies are also paying a little more tax and 1.5bn is a very small increase.

pinno

Hard to get info on profits by country for Apple.
2016: Global profits. $233bn. Europe, $68bn.

"...Maybe the Irish should be grateful they got even that much. Apple didn't pay any corporation tax at all in the UK in 2012. But more recently things have got a little better here; Mail Online estimates that Apple made £1.9bn of profit in the UK in the year ended September 2014 and paid £11.8m in tax - a rate of 0.6 percent - although it should be emphasised that this figure is based on accountants' estimates of profit generated rather than Apple's own figures, which are vastly lower."

"In its most recent financial results, for Q3 2016 - which was a moderately disappointing quarter for Apple - the company declared revenue of $42.4bn and an income after operating expenses (and additional income) but before tax of $10.5bn, and allocated £2.7bn of that for income tax. (You can read Apple's Q3 2016 financial statement here.) That's a rate of 25.5 percent, which sounds pretty solid, although it would probably be higher if Apple held less of its profits offshore - Tim Cook has stated that he cannot repatriate the firm's overseas holdings to the US because it would cost 40 percent of the total. The statutory rate for corporations in the US is 35 percent; although in practice very few companies pay that much.

In any case, the 25.5 percent is a figure that reflects Apple's global operations, and in many of the territories where it operates the company pays a rate that is far lower.

In 2014 (and this is what caused the recent ill-feeling), Apple is believed to have paid an effective rate - based on approximations of the value that was created there - of 0.005 percent tax in Ireland, where the usual rate of corporation tax is 12.5 percent. That's a rate that is already lower than almost anywhere else in Europe: the UK's corporate tax rate is 20 percent."

"Maybe the Irish should be grateful they got even that much. Apple didn't pay any corporation tax at all in the UK in 2012. But more recently things have got a little better here; Mail Online estimates that Apple made £1.9bn of profit in the UK in the year ended September 2014 and paid £11.8m in tax - a rate of 0.6 percent - although it should be emphasised that this figure is based on accountants' estimates of profit generated rather than Apple's own figures, which are vastly lower."

https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/appl ... e-3645779/

Stevo_666

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

Conflicting facts on the Oxfam page - the second paragraph of the Netherlands article states
'With its tax policy, the Netherlands perpetuates poverty and extreme inequality in the world - a world in which the richest 62 people now own as much as the poorest half of the global population.'
The further down the page on another link it states ' Today, 8 individuals have the same wealth as the poorest half the people on our planet. It is time to bring an end to inequality. It is time to Even it up!'

Either way it's a stark comparison but not helping Oxfam's case with inconsistencies?

Typical of organisations like that. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I've asked you this before. If Starbucks derive say £100m in profits in the UK,why shouldn't they should be taxed at the current rate of corporation tax (19%?)? If Apple derive £200m in profits from their activities in the UK, they should be charged 19% of that. Why not? Surely import duties would make Apple products uncompetitive if they served the UK market by export?
I cite Apple because they have come under heavy criticism for their aggressive tax avoidance tactics and use of Tax Havens are a critical vessel for those tactics.

Because according to the law in pretty much every country, not just the UK, taxable profit is different from accounting profit for starters. You start with accounting profit and then adjust for numerous items such as capital allowances, brought forward tax losses, non-deductible expenses, non taxable income such as dividends. It is perfectly feasible to make a large UK accounting profit and not pay UK tax - even without tax planning.

Then there's transfer pricing which determines how much value add and risk sits where and how much return/profit is earned where. And deferred tax which is only an accounting entry. Etc etc. Go read up more if you want, it's a complex area.

Sure accounting profit and taxable profit are different, but I'd bet the reason that Starbucks pays very little tax is due to allocating lots of the profit to a low tax jurisdiction. I think in Starbucks case, they don't even book an accounting profit. They are essentially running themselves on a charitable basis as there is very little other reason for their presence in the UK.

You're that they were running an accounting loss in the years in question.

A lot of it IIRC was down to the charges for the IP charges which ironically HMRC had looked at and concluded were at arms length. When the media storm broke and Starbucks offered to pay some corp tax for PR purposes they had to agree to arbitrarily disallow some of the charges rather than it being a genuine challenge on a technical basis.