Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

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?

Missed a word out - now corrected. Calm down.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

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?

Missed a word out - now corrected. Calm down.

I'll definitely not seek your assistance when I fill out my SA form.

pinno

(and i'm quite calm thank you).

Stevo_666

OK.

I notice you're not arguing against my cartel point.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

OK.

I notice you're not arguing against my cartel point.

I hadn't involved myself in much of the Cartel argument TBH.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

OK.

I notice you're not arguing against my cartel point.

I hadn't involved myself in much of the Cartel argument TBH.

OK, so my point stands.

john80

TheBigBean wrote:

The EU has named what it considers to be tax havens

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

For all those arguing that tax avoidance is a minor problem then I would encourage you to read this. 506billion estimated to be lost to tax havens for the EU as a block. There are just over 500 million people in the EU. So if we eliminated tax avoidance to tax havens then we could give every citizen around 1000 pounds/euros in cash. Just think how much that would stimulate the economy. Kids buying sweets and toys. Essex girls buying beauty products and treatments etc. etc. For all the faults of the EU it would be pretty funny if they just excluded anyone dealing with these jurisdictions as unable to trade in the EU as it is clear that they are unwilling to run real economies. My guess is that you would gain votes if you pursued this course of action even if you can't buy an Iphone for a month until Apple get with the program.

surrey_commuter

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.

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.

What has this to do with the 9 year old boy in Bolivia?

Stevo_666

john80 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

The EU has named what it considers to be tax havens

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

For all those arguing that tax avoidance is a minor problem then I would encourage you to read this. 506billion estimated to be lost to tax havens for the EU as a block. There are just over 500 million people in the EU. So if we eliminated tax avoidance to tax havens then we could give every citizen around 1000 pounds/euros in cash. Just think how much that would stimulate the economy. Kids buying sweets and toys. Essex girls buying beauty products and treatments etc. etc. For all the faults of the EU it would be pretty funny if they just excluded anyone dealing with these jurisdictions as unable to trade in the EU as it is clear that they are unwilling to run real economies. My guess is that you would gain votes if you pursued this course of action even if you can't buy an Iphone for a month until Apple get with the program.

I'd like to see how they estimated that. Also refers to all 'aggressive' tax avoidance, not simply tax havens. Good headline grabber though.

It certainly does not stack up against HMRCs own figures for the UK tax avoidance of £1.7bn per year (for all types) - see links earlier in this thread to official UK tax gap figures.

pinno

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

On a more global level, pharmaceutical companies charge vastly more for a product in countries they know can afford it.

What has this to do with the 9 year old boy in Bolivia?

It was in response to the statement by WS above.

TheBigBean

EU is to force companies to reveal the beneficial owners. Slightly contradicts an expert poster upthread that said this was all publicly available with 30s of work.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ama-papers

Stevo_666

TheBigBean wrote:

EU is to force companies to reveal the beneficial owners. Slightly contradicts an expert poster upthread that said this was all publicly available with 30s of work.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ama-papers

It has been coming for a while and as the name of the directive suggests, is aimed mainly at money laundering.

diplodicus

Stevo 666 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

EU is to force companies to reveal the beneficial owners. Slightly contradicts an expert poster upthread that said this was all publicly available with 30s of work.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ama-papers

It has been coming for a while and as the name of the directive suggests, is aimed mainly at money laundering.

Which doesn't happen in tax havens, no sir, nothing to see, move along

Stevo_666

diplodicus wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

EU is to force companies to reveal the beneficial owners. Slightly contradicts an expert poster upthread that said this was all publicly available with 30s of work.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ama-papers

It has been coming for a while and as the name of the directive suggests, is aimed mainly at money laundering.

Which doesn't happen in tax havens, no sir, nothing to see, move along

Happens everywhere Also ultimate beneficial owners can be located anywhere in the world.

The Guardian is trying to link the two but the regs for this were in development before the leak happened.

briantrumpet

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.

Lloyds seems to believe that “As a responsible business, we share public interest that ‘big business’ contributes its fair share to the UK’s prosperity, which is why we aim to be open and transparent about our approach to tax – including our overall strategy and payments.”

As reported in that leftiebollox rag, the Telegraph.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet 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.

Lloyds seems to believe that “As a responsible business, we share public interest that ‘big business’ contributes its fair share to the UK’s prosperity, which is why we aim to be open and transparent about our approach to tax – including our overall strategy and payments.”

As reported in that leftiebollox rag, the Telegraph.

Ho hum, round we go again. It would appear that you still haven't understood.

Define 'fair'.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet 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.

Lloyds seems to believe that “As a responsible business, we share public interest that ‘big business’ contributes its fair share to the UK’s prosperity, which is why we aim to be open and transparent about our approach to tax – including our overall strategy and payments.”

As reported in that leftiebollox rag, the Telegraph.

Ho hum, round we go again. It would appear that you still haven't understood.

Define 'fair'.

Well, perhaps your priority should be understanding where Lloyds are coming from - I think they probably carry more weight than a trumpeter on a bike forum. You can say "here we go again" if you like, but that doesn't unreport what the Telegraph reported about Lloyds.

Stevo_666

It's not news. Believe it or not the majority of big businesses are pretty good corporate citizens and many make public statements on tax to a similar effect in their annual accounts/websites.

If you read the Lloyds statement they say that they share 'the public interest' I.e. the perception. Which I have demonstrated on here before to be in many cases misguided and/or focussing solely on corporate tax, which is one of many taxes borne by businesses. They are not saying that big businesses generally do not pay their 'fair share' - whatever that is?

However if you are going to make the point you need to be able to say what is 'fair' otherwise the debate is meaningless, so have another go

rick_chasey

So the 14 oversees territories must introduce public ownership registers by 2020 or else have them imposed by U.K. govt.

Matthewfalle

is thd back to ubo or ben o?

Matthewfalle

especially for trust structures.

settlor disclosure is existing but beneficiaries not.....

Stevo_666

As in this, announced back in January?
https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/bill-create-beneficial-ownership-register-uk-property-25012018

rick_chasey

Yeah went through parliament today unopposed.

Stevo_666

No surprise there then. Should help the fight against money laundering.

rick_chasey

I guess this thread needs a re-up given the news about the "Pandora papers"

Pross

rick_chasey said:

I guess this thread needs a re-up given the news about the "Pandora papers"

Going to be interesting. I assume the timing of it on the opening day of the Tory conference isn't a coincidence.

davidof

Rich people own property all over the planet and don't like paying tax. Not exactly a scoop.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

I guess this thread needs a re-up given the news about the "Pandora papers"

Going to be interesting. I assume the timing of it on the opening day of the Tory conference isn't a coincidence.

It's fairly international so I think it's probably coincidental.