Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Also Rick, would you care to have a crack at this since the 'Trumpet Major' has ducked it?

Stevo 666 wrote:

If commercial companies competing for business all colluded to fix their prices at a high level that would be an illegal cartel and would attract massive punitive fines from the EU or various national governments. Are you saying that cartels are OK if it is the cost of tax that is being fixed? Should governments somehow be exempt from their own rules on price fixing?

Yes, because it's not the same is it.

States are not free enterprises.

Wrong. You can't have different rules just because their legal forms are different. And it would encourage states to be lazy, not control costs and simply milk tax payers.

Anyhow, what you are envisaging is simply cloud cuckoo land as countries will never collude in that way. Nice bit of theory but back to the real world again...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36049817

http://economia.icaew.com/news/june-201 ... ance-rules

https://www.ft.com/content/274cd10a-4a0 ... 42b9791d43

Some 70 countries will sign a pact on Wednesday to crack down on international tax avoidance, with changes that backers say will increase the worldwide corporate tax take by up to 10 per cent.

Countries including the EU’s 28 members, India, China and Australia — but not the US — will sign a pioneering agreement in Paris that will make changes to thousands of treaties to halt abuse by companies and improve dispute resolution.

Missing the point again. I am talking about tax competition, which is different from the above - very obviously.

Are you saying that tax completion will not occur again? Yes or no.

Let's see if you are in the real world or just a theorist.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

States not being companies isn't just a 'rule of law' thing.

They're entirely different. They have entirely different objectives and purposes.

True, they are different but they still should not collude to overcharge.

?

"over charge". How on earth is that even something that can be applied to states and tax?

Government isn't a business. It's objective is not to make profit.

Governments can still over charge. And they do.

It's really very simple, so I'll explain it one more time in a different way then leave you to your imaginary theoretical world where governments charge whatever they want and everyone happily coughs up the money.

Anti cartel rules are designed to stop consumers being overcharged,p co services and goods put simply. Governments provide services to its citizens and charge for it by way of taxes. No difference between that and other service providers. So if governments collude to keep their charges (taxes) high, that is a cartel like any other.

Again back in the real world, tax competition keeps them honest.

Here's an article on tax cartels:
http://oecdinsights.org/2015/03/23/oecd-and-beps-defending-the-tax-cartel/

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

States not being companies isn't just a 'rule of law' thing.

They're entirely different. They have entirely different objectives and purposes.

True, they are different but they still should not collude to overcharge.

?

"over charge". How on earth is that even something that can be applied to states and tax?

Government isn't a business. It's objective is not to make profit.

Governments can still over charge. And they do.

It's really very simple, so I'll explain it one more time in a different way then leave you to your imaginary theoretical world where governments charge whatever they want and everyone happily coughs up the money.

Anti cartel rules are designed to stop consumers being overcharged,p co services and goods put simply. Governments provide services to its citizens and charge for it by way of taxes. No difference between that and other service providers. So if governments collude to keep their charges (taxes) high, that is a cartel like any other.

Again back in the real world, tax competition keeps them honest.

Here's an article on tax cartels:
http://oecdinsights.org/2015/03/23/oecd-and-beps-defending-the-tax-cartel/

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

Many taxes are not income dependent - VAT for example.

- As many income/profit based taxes are compulsory (unlike contributions to a charity in your analogy, and unlike normal commercial transactions), I would argue that rules on government cartels should be even stricter.
- Add to that the point that there is only one supplier of government 'services' and no choice, then we really should be pinning governments down tightly on the cartel front.

Luckily tax competition and people like me are here to keep them honest and stop you the tax payer getting charged too much

rick_chasey

What, as opposed to voters at the ballot box?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

What, as opposed to voters at the ballot box?

That as well.

Always helps to have more than one line of defence against collusion and price fixing. You see how difficult it would be in practice?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well it seems to work as tax competition is thriving in a country near you. Well most of them actually

And no amount of self righteous whingeing will change that

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well it seems to work as tax completion is thriving in a country near you. Well most of them actually

And no amount of self righteous whingeing will change that

So this is where you are talking crap.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well it seems to work as tax completion is thriving in a country near you. Well most of them actually

And no amount of self righteous whingeing will change that

So this is where you are talking crap.

I can show you up as well if you want Again

rick_chasey

TBH with that level of fundamental misunderstanding, whatevs.

Anyway, here's more on tax havens causing problems. This time on GDP figures.

https://qz.com/1133984/the-global-offsh ... asic-data/

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

TBH with that level of fundamental misunderstanding, whatevs.

True, I've grown tired of explaining the reality to you as you either don't understand or just plough on with the same old stuff regardless. Good example above...

rick_chasey

Yeah OK mate.

You can bang on about how great tax havens are while the rest of the economically educated world looks at how to reduce the costly impact of them.

And good luck trying to treat nations like businesses.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

And good luck trying to treat nations like businesses.

I don't need to. They are doing the tax competition, not me

I will just continue channelling business activity into tax friendly countries at the expense of more aggressive jurisdictions - tax competition in action, courtesy of me

TheBigBean

The EU has named what it considers to be tax havens

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -on-notice

Stevo_666

Ties in with what I posted above on the timing of this 'disclosure':

Stevo 666 wrote:

Interestingly the whole Paradise Papers leak is starting to look like a leftie conspiracy, implemented by theft of private data:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/25/guernsey-finance-chief-claims-release-paradise-papers-ploy-influence/

Interesting list as well - South Korea, Tunisia, Mongolia and Namibia?

Wheelspinner

rjsterry wrote:

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

You sure about that? Supermarkets, insurance companies, and oil companies are three that immediately spring to mind that do. They price their product based on the postcode where they sell it, which is a fairly direct link to the relative incomes of the people who live and shop in those areas. On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it.

At a local level, simple things like tradesmen very definitely price their work based on how much money they think they can squeeze out of the client, not a flat rate for a given job at all. Ever.

pinno

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

You sure about that? Supermarkets, insurance companies, and oil companies are three that immediately spring to mind that do. They price their product based on the postcode where they sell it, which is a fairly direct link to the relative incomes of the people who live and shop in those areas. On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it.

At a local level, simple things like tradesmen very definitely price their work based on how much money they think they can squeeze out of the client, not a flat rate for a given job at all. Ever.

I would agree with most of that bar "On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it".

Pharmaceutical companies generally behave like 4rseholes.

There is a current move in England to not dispense over the counter medicines prescribed by Doctors and there have been recent investigations on monopolising markets and over pricing.

Picture a 9 year old boy living in Bolivia. The Colombians sold out to a French utility company for electricity and an American company for water provision based on funding and concessions to obtain that investment.
(Resulting in Cholera and other diseases as the inhabitants of Bogota in the poor districts could not afford the now privatised utilities but that's another story).
Boy was on Fluconazole. 4 tablets a day. It cost $35 for a months supply in Colombia but only $7 in Peru.
So they travelled once a month to Peru. The border guards turned a blind eye to it even though this practice was illegal, knowing that the drug was saving the child's life and that the family of the boy could ill afford the new drug pricing structure 'imposed' on them by a foreign country (the US).
But the drugs companies put political pressure on the Colombian government to clamp down on this illegal practice of obtaining the same drug, made by the same manufacturer, sold in another country.
The boy died.

rick_chasey

Supermarkets aren’t allowed to price differently according to geography. Has to be the same across all shops.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

Supermarkets aren’t allowed to price differently according to geography. Has to be the same across all shops.

But they bleedin' do.

Co-op croissants are +/- 6p in this region alone.

rick_chasey

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Supermarkets aren’t allowed to price differently according to geography. Has to be the same across all shops.

But they bleedin' do.

Co-op croissants are +/- 6p in this region alone.

Sure about that?

FT Alphaville did a case example in geographical price variations in westherspoons. Really rather good.

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/11/17/ ... herspoons/

Unrelated to tax havens mind.

rick_chasey

And it’s all shops of the same type hence Tesco Express etc.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

You sure about that? Supermarkets, insurance companies, and oil companies are three that immediately spring to mind that do. They price their product based on the postcode where they sell it, which is a fairly direct link to the relative incomes of the people who live and shop in those areas. On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it.

At a local level, simple things like tradesmen very definitely price their work based on how much money they think they can squeeze out of the client, not a flat rate for a given job at all. Ever.

I would agree with most of that bar "On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it".

Pharmaceutical companies generally behave like 4rseholes.

So using your logic, pharmaceutical companies behave like governments - who tax you more where they think you can afford it?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Supermarkets aren’t allowed to price differently according to geography. Has to be the same across all shops.

There are plenty of other examples in the private sector.

rjsterry

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

You sure about that? Supermarkets, insurance companies, and oil companies are three that immediately spring to mind that do. They price their product based on the postcode where they sell it, which is a fairly direct link to the relative incomes of the people who live and shop in those areas. On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it.

At a local level, simple things like tradesmen very definitely price their work based on how much money they think they can squeeze out of the client, not a flat rate for a given job at all. Ever.

All those are correlation, not causal relationships. You don't fill out a form telling any of them how much you've got before they tell you the price. Yes, there are similarities between the way businesses compete on price and countries compete on their tax rates to attract revenue, but that only applies for taxes where there is a practical option for businesses or individual to 'shop around'.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

You don't fill out a form telling any of them how much you've got before they tell you the price.

Like VAT.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

You sure about that? Supermarkets, insurance companies, and oil companies are three that immediately spring to mind that do. They price their product based on the postcode where they sell it, which is a fairly direct link to the relative incomes of the people who live and shop in those areas. On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it.

At a local level, simple things like tradesmen very definitely price their work based on how much money they think they can squeeze out of the client, not a flat rate for a given job at all. Ever.

I would agree with most of that bar "On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it".

Pharmaceutical companies generally behave like 4rseholes.

So using your logic, pharmaceutical companies behave like governments - who tax you more where they think you can afford it?

Tax, according to a system which generates revenue based on the ability of that populace to afford it, in theory is fair.

Pharmaceutical companies don't necessarily do that.
The example I gave was part of a trade agreement between the US and Colombia. Why should the population of Colombia have to pay 6 times what they used to pay over night for certain drugs? By that logic, Colombian living standards suddenly shot exponentially and disproportionately up in one day?

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

You sure about that? Supermarkets, insurance companies, and oil companies are three that immediately spring to mind that do. They price their product based on the postcode where they sell it, which is a fairly direct link to the relative incomes of the people who live and shop in those areas. On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it.

At a local level, simple things like tradesmen very definitely price their work based on how much money they think they can squeeze out of the client, not a flat rate for a given job at all. Ever.

I would agree with most of that bar "On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it".

Pharmaceutical companies generally behave like 4rseholes.

So using your logic, pharmaceutical companies behave like governments - who tax you more where they think you can afford it?

Tax, according to a system which generates revenue based on the ability of that populace to afford it, in theory is fair.

Pharmaceutical companies don't necessarily do that.
The example I gave was part of a trade agreement between the US and Colombia. Why should the population of Colombia have to pay 6 times what they used to pay over night for certain drugs? By that logic, Colombian living standards suddenly shot exponentially and disproportionately up in one day?

You're a brave man if you think you can argue that the tax system is fair.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

You sure about that? Supermarkets, insurance companies, and oil companies are three that immediately spring to mind that do. They price their product based on the postcode where they sell it, which is a fairly direct link to the relative incomes of the people who live and shop in those areas. On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it.

At a local level, simple things like tradesmen very definitely price their work based on how much money they think they can squeeze out of the client, not a flat rate for a given job at all. Ever.

I would agree with most of that bar "On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it".

Pharmaceutical companies generally behave like 4rseholes.

So using your logic, pharmaceutical companies behave like governments - who tax you more where they think you can afford it?

Tax, according to a system which generates revenue based on the ability of that populace to afford it, in theory is fair.

Pharmaceutical companies don't necessarily do that.
The example I gave was part of a trade agreement between the US and Colombia. Why should the population of Colombia have to pay 6 times what they used to pay over night for certain drugs? By that logic, Colombian living standards suddenly shot exponentially and disproportionately up in one day?

You're a brave man if you think you can argue that the tax system is fair.

Read it again. I've highlighted the key words.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

You sure about that? Supermarkets, insurance companies, and oil companies are three that immediately spring to mind that do. They price their product based on the postcode where they sell it, which is a fairly direct link to the relative incomes of the people who live and shop in those areas. On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it.

At a local level, simple things like tradesmen very definitely price their work based on how much money they think they can squeeze out of the client, not a flat rate for a given job at all. Ever.

I would agree with most of that bar "On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it".

Pharmaceutical companies generally behave like 4rseholes.

So using your logic, pharmaceutical companies behave like governments - who tax you more where they think you can afford it?

Tax, according to a system which generates revenue based on the ability of that populace to afford it, in theory is fair.

Pharmaceutical companies don't necessarily do that.
The example I gave was part of a trade agreement between the US and Colombia. Why should the population of Colombia have to pay 6 times what they used to pay over night for certain drugs? By that logic, Colombian living standards suddenly shot exponentially and disproportionately up in one day?

You're a brave man if you think you can argue that the tax system is fair.

Read it again. I've highlighted the key words.

Exactly, only a theory. Not reality.

So I see no reason why governments should not be prevented from forming cartels as per my original point.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

There is quite a big difference: businesses don't usually charge according to the customer's financial means and aren't generally looking to redistribute resources to provide certain basic minimum standards of living. A charity or non-profit might be a better analogy.

You sure about that? Supermarkets, insurance companies, and oil companies are three that immediately spring to mind that do. They price their product based on the postcode where they sell it, which is a fairly direct link to the relative incomes of the people who live and shop in those areas. On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it.

At a local level, simple things like tradesmen very definitely price their work based on how much money they think they can squeeze out of the client, not a flat rate for a given job at all. Ever.

I would agree with most of that bar "On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it".

Pharmaceutical companies generally behave like 4rseholes.

So using your logic, pharmaceutical companies behave like governments - who tax you more where they think you can afford it?

Tax, according to a system which generates revenue based on the ability of that populace to afford it, in theory is fair.

Pharmaceutical companies don't necessarily do that.
The example I gave was part of a trade agreement between the US and Colombia. Why should the population of Colombia have to pay 6 times what they used to pay over night for certain drugs? By that logic, Colombian living standards suddenly shot exponentially and disproportionately up in one day?

You're a brave man if you think you can argue that the tax system is fair.

Read it again. I've highlighted the key words.

Exactly, only a theory. Not reality.

So I see no reason why governments should be prevented from forming cartels as per my original point.

Yes of course you do - what stunt are you trying to pull?

You said in an earlier post that you thought the penalty for Cartels should be tougher and I think that you probably think that trade agreements may be compromised, the WTO might have a say about it and reciprocal cartels would be detrimental and could backfire. Or not?