Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

mr_goo

Please discuss. Especially those of you in the city commercial sector. Isn't there a corporate accountant on here that is known to help reduce the taxation impact for his companys' clients? How does he square the circle, knowing that tax that could and should have been paid into the Inland Revenue could have gone towards things like cancer research. Which I'm sure other forum members on here have first hand experience of and would appreciate.
(Not a personal attack, but a question of Is It Moral?)

As for the Queen and other high net worth individuals not knowing where their money is invested. Ignorance is not an excuse. No matter how much I owned, I am damn sure I'd know where it was kept and what it was doing.

ballysmate

Mr Goo wrote:

Please discuss. Especially those of you in the city commercial sector. Isn't there a corporate accountant on here that is known to help reduce the taxation impact for his companys' clients? How does he square the circle, knowing that tax that could and should have been paid into the Inland Revenue could have gone towards things like cancer research. Which I'm sure other forum members on here have first hand experience of and would appreciate.
Not a personal attack, but a question of Is It Moral?

Moral? Irrelevant. The only question is legality. If legal no problem. If not, offenders should face action.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Please discuss. Especially those of you in the city commercial sector. Isn't there a corporate accountant on here that is known to help reduce the taxation impact for his companys' clients? How does he square the circle, knowing that tax that could and should have been paid into the Inland Revenue could have gone towards things like cancer research. Which I'm sure other forum members on here have first hand experience of and would appreciate.
Not a personal attack, but a question of Is It Moral?

Moral? Irrelevant. The only question is legality. If legal no problem. If not, offenders should face action.

Doesn't mean you may not want to revise the law in light of certain behaviours.

tangled_metal

We're not moral animals so morality is subjective.

What I mean we're a selfish species so hypocritical to see tax avoidance as anything other than humans being selfish. You can apply this selfish principle to pretty much anything humans do. Brexit is selfish. Donating to cancer because it's affected your family is a kind of selfish act too.

Of course the other side of the equation is tax evasion is illegal tax avoidance isn't. Boundaries between the two change. What is illegal now was once legal avoidance of tax.

Also how much of what is coming out is illegal and how much is just offending people's view of morality.

pblakeney

Morals are subjective and therefore negligible.
Enough pressure to get laws changed though...

haydenm

Mr Goo wrote:

As for the Queen and other high net worth individuals not knowing where their money is invested. Ignorance is not an excuse. No matter how much I owned, I am damn sure I'd know where it was kept and what it was doing.

Do you know where your pension is invested? I don't

Until it's illegal it's our own fault really.

Tashman

Do you use your ISA allowance? That is a legalised tax avoidance scheme, reducing the amount of taxation paid into the national coffers. hell, even charity donations are used to reduce the liability.

surrey_commuter

HaydenM wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

As for the Queen and other high net worth individuals not knowing where their money is invested. Ignorance is not an excuse. No matter how much I owned, I am damn sure I'd know where it was kept and what it was doing.

Do you know where your pension is invested? I don't

Until it's illegal it's our own fault really.

I hope none is in a tracker fund or you will be investing in arms manufacturers, vivisectionists and tobacco companies. Would take you a long time to make sure that no company you had invested in was in breach of the Daily Mail's moral code on employing kids etc.

rick_chasey

Tashman wrote:

Do you use your ISA allowance? That is a legalised tax avoidance scheme, reducing the amount of taxation paid into the national coffers. hell, even charity donations are used to reduce the liability.

Not quite the same as using offshore structures to hide illegal loans/bungs to secure mining rights in nations wracked by civil war and war crimes, via people well known for exchanging arms to war criminals in exchange for rights to mine natural resources though, is it?

john80

It is starting to maybe dawn on the average joe that all this trickle down economics is not the best way to run a country. The money which we as a population generate as consumers simply goes offshore where a small percentage is brought back to buy goods for a very limited number of people. If you sell these high end products then great but for the majority this has zero benefit to them. Mass consumerism drives an economy to the benefit of all.

Maybe it is time for a flat rate 20% tax that you just can't avoid and if that means that you don't do business in Britain then so be it as lets face there is plenty of individuals that will be happy to take the gap left behind. If you London house goes up 100% and is owned by a foreign entity then that fine but give the exchequer 20% before you stash it in the Bahamas. If you think there is a IP/trademark claim on how you serve coffee then this third party based in a tax haven can get their IP/trademark payment after it has been taxed at 20%.

Whilst the wealthy have the power to frame the debate they are I believe reaching a tipping point where if they had to come down and defend the position on question time then it would get pretty funny pretty quickly. Democracies are supposed to stop the 1% taking the piss and they are only a few years from getting pitchforked.

rick_chasey

What it mainly does is illustrate the need for much deeper international co-operation on tax.

Tashman

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tashman wrote:

Do you use your ISA allowance? That is a legalised tax avoidance scheme, reducing the amount of taxation paid into the national coffers. hell, even charity donations are used to reduce the liability.

Not quite the same as using offshore structures to hide illegal loans/bungs to secure mining rights in nations wracked by civil war and war crimes, via people well known for exchanging arms to war criminals in exchange for rights to mine natural resources though, is it?

Crikey, HRH really is in deep water

surrey_commuter

john80 wrote:

It is starting to maybe dawn on the average joe that all this trickle down economics is not the best way to run a country. The money which we as a population generate as consumers simply goes offshore where a small percentage is brought back to buy goods for a very limited number of people. If you sell these high end products then great but for the majority this has zero benefit to them. Mass consumerism drives an economy to the benefit of all.

Maybe it is time for a flat rate 20% tax that you just can't avoid and if that means that you don't do business in Britain then so be it as lets face there is plenty of individuals that will be happy to take the gap left behind. If you London house goes up 100% and is owned by a foreign entity then that fine but give the exchequer 20% before you stash it in the Bahamas. If you think there is a IP/trademark claim on how you serve coffee then this third party based in a tax haven can get their IP/trademark payment after it has been taxed at 20%.

Whilst the wealthy have the power to frame the debate they are I believe reaching a tipping point where if they had to come down and defend the position on question time then it would get pretty funny pretty quickly. Democracies are supposed to stop the 1% taking the wee-wee and they are only a few years from getting pitchforked.

consumers don't generate money

what would you tax at 20%

tangled_metal

Tashman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tashman wrote:

Do you use your ISA allowance? That is a legalised tax avoidance scheme, reducing the amount of taxation paid into the national coffers. hell, even charity donations are used to reduce the liability.

Not quite the same as using offshore structures to hide illegal loans/bungs to secure mining rights in nations wracked by civil war and war crimes, via people well known for exchanging arms to war criminals in exchange for rights to mine natural resources though, is it?

Crikey, HRH really is in deep water

Why?

AFAIK she's invested into a fund of some kind that's gone into funding companies the general public disprove of. Not illegal AFAIK. As the monarch she doesn't pay tax i believe so can she really avoid tax in this country?

Seriously interested in seeing what convictions or deals are struck over the information in these hacked papers. I bet a vast majority of those papers relate to legal transactions. I also hope they go after and convict those making the illegal transactions. Until that happens it's all public indignation feeds into the ignorance of the masses. Daily Mail fodder perhaps.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

As for the Queen and other high net worth individuals not knowing where their money is invested. Ignorance is not an excuse. No matter how much I owned, I am damn sure I'd know where it was kept and what it was doing.

Do you know where your pension is invested? I don't

Until it's illegal it's our own fault really.

I hope none is in a tracker fund or you will be investing in arms manufacturers, vivisectionists and tobacco companies. Would take you a long time to make sure that no company you had invested in was in breach of the Daily Mail's moral code on employing kids etc.

Fairly sure Vanguard have an ethical index tracker, no?

SLI, & Kames have 'ethical' funds IIRC.

pblakeney

Tangled Metal wrote:

Until that happens it's all public indignation feeds into the ignorance of the masses. Daily Mail fodder perhaps.

I believe you have just insulted Rick in the most outrageous manner possible!

john80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

john80 wrote:

It is starting to maybe dawn on the average joe that all this trickle down economics is not the best way to run a country. The money which we as a population generate as consumers simply goes offshore where a small percentage is brought back to buy goods for a very limited number of people. If you sell these high end products then great but for the majority this has zero benefit to them. Mass consumerism drives an economy to the benefit of all.

Maybe it is time for a flat rate 20% tax that you just can't avoid and if that means that you don't do business in Britain then so be it as lets face there is plenty of individuals that will be happy to take the gap left behind. If you London house goes up 100% and is owned by a foreign entity then that fine but give the exchequer 20% before you stash it in the Bahamas. If you think there is a IP/trademark claim on how you serve coffee then this third party based in a tax haven can get their IP/trademark payment after it has been taxed at 20%.

Whilst the wealthy have the power to frame the debate they are I believe reaching a tipping point where if they had to come down and defend the position on question time then it would get pretty funny pretty quickly. Democracies are supposed to stop the 1% taking the wee-wee and they are only a few years from getting pitchforked.

consumers don't generate money

what would you tax at 20%

Wages and profit of any nature with zero exceptions. Pretty basic really. If you sell a packet of biscuits or an app then pay 20% on what you profited in doing so. Don't want to pay 20% tax then don't engage in the market and go to other more accommodating nations losing a 60million population market in the process. If you have a better solution then I am all ears.

mamba80

the rules involving off shore and tax avoidance etc will never substantially change because the rich make these, why on earth would they make themselves poorer? even TM is worth £2m, which like Blair's bank acc will increase once she leaves Parliament, people like Ashcroft etc wont fund any party that penalises them.

rick_chasey

Tangled Metal wrote:

Tashman wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tashman wrote:

Do you use your ISA allowance? That is a legalised tax avoidance scheme, reducing the amount of taxation paid into the national coffers. hell, even charity donations are used to reduce the liability.

Not quite the same as using offshore structures to hide illegal loans/bungs to secure mining rights in nations wracked by civil war and war crimes, via people well known for exchanging arms to war criminals in exchange for rights to mine natural resources though, is it?

Crikey, HRH really is in deep water

Why?

AFAIK she's invested into a fund of some kind that's gone into funding companies the general public disprove of. Not illegal AFAIK. As the monarch she doesn't pay tax i believe so can she really avoid tax in this country?

Seriously interested in seeing what convictions or deals are struck over the information in these hacked papers. I bet a vast majority of those papers relate to legal transactions. I also hope they go after and convict those making the illegal transactions. Until that happens it's all public indignation feeds into the ignorance of the masses. Daily Mail fodder perhaps.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ed-to-know

So here are Glencore using offshore structures to dodge compliance rules.

"By providing Gertler with the loan and the mandate to get the contract finalized, Glencore disregarded the red flags raised by Gertler’s connections and track record," Elisabeth Caesens, an expert in Congolese mining deals who reviewed the leaked documents, told Bloomberg News. In doing so, Glencore "exposed itself to the risk of non-compliance with anti-corruption rules,” she said in response to questions.

Tashman

john80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

john80 wrote:

It is starting to maybe dawn on the average joe that all this trickle down economics is not the best way to run a country. The money which we as a population generate as consumers simply goes offshore where a small percentage is brought back to buy goods for a very limited number of people. If you sell these high end products then great but for the majority this has zero benefit to them. Mass consumerism drives an economy to the benefit of all.

Maybe it is time for a flat rate 20% tax that you just can't avoid and if that means that you don't do business in Britain then so be it as lets face there is plenty of individuals that will be happy to take the gap left behind. If you London house goes up 100% and is owned by a foreign entity then that fine but give the exchequer 20% before you stash it in the Bahamas. If you think there is a IP/trademark claim on how you serve coffee then this third party based in a tax haven can get their IP/trademark payment after it has been taxed at 20%.

Whilst the wealthy have the power to frame the debate they are I believe reaching a tipping point where if they had to come down and defend the position on question time then it would get pretty funny pretty quickly. Democracies are supposed to stop the 1% taking the wee-wee and they are only a few years from getting pitchforked.

consumers don't generate money

what would you tax at 20%

Wages and profit of any nature with zero exceptions. Pretty basic really. If you sell a packet of biscuits or an app then pay 20% on what you profited in doing so. Don't want to pay 20% tax then don't engage in the market and go to other more accommodating nations losing a 60million population market in the process. If you have a better solution then I am all ears.

Biscuits aren't taxable

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Please discuss. Especially those of you in the city commercial sector. Isn't there a corporate accountant on here that is known to help reduce the taxation impact for his companys' clients? How does he square the circle, knowing that tax that could and should have been paid into the Inland Revenue could have gone towards things like cancer research. Which I'm sure other forum members on here have first hand experience of and would appreciate.
Not a personal attack, but a question of Is It Moral?

Moral? Irrelevant. The only question is legality. If legal no problem. If not, offenders should face action.

I'm guessing Goo is referring to someone else as I don't have clients?

I guess we will have to see exactly what the people/organisations have been doing, which ones are relevant to the UK and whether it is legal or not. If not legal, then chuck the book at them.

If its legal then legislate it away. You can't have a properly functioning tax system where you do something that is legal but anyone can come along and say 'Oh but in my opinion, you're not paying enough'. Imagine going past a speed camera on a stretch of road: the speed limit is 50mph and you're doing 49mph. A week later you get a letter saying you're getting fined because, although you were under the speed limit, in the opinion of the bloke checking the camera records you were going too fast...

As a judge has said recently in a tax case, morality has no place in this court room.

Goo - how much money do you think we will raise by doing this? Or maybe how much do you think is being avoided this way?

tangled_metal

PBlakeney wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Until that happens it's all public indignation feeds into the ignorance of the masses. Daily Mail fodder perhaps.

I believe you have just insulted Rick in the most outrageous manner possible!

Oh dear! I hope he didn't think it was targeted at him, it wasn't.

Still I quite like the idea of Rick being a closet Daily Mail reader. A bit like Stevo joining the labour party and voting Corbyn into leadership and possibly number ten one day.

rick_chasey

Just because it falls between different legal jurisdictions and is therefore, legal (though a lot of what is reported isn't necessarily legal, at least from a corporate compliance perspective) doesn't mean it is particularly optimal for society.

Nor does the fact that it requires a leak for the situations to be publicly known suggest that they're doing it because they want to keep compliant with the law. I would imagine some of the attraction to these structures is the opacity that they have; usually to hide murky dealings (e.g. Glencore).

kingstongraham

john80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

john80 wrote:

It is starting to maybe dawn on the average joe that all this trickle down economics is not the best way to run a country. The money which we as a population generate as consumers simply goes offshore where a small percentage is brought back to buy goods for a very limited number of people. If you sell these high end products then great but for the majority this has zero benefit to them. Mass consumerism drives an economy to the benefit of all.

Maybe it is time for a flat rate 20% tax that you just can't avoid and if that means that you don't do business in Britain then so be it as lets face there is plenty of individuals that will be happy to take the gap left behind. If you London house goes up 100% and is owned by a foreign entity then that fine but give the exchequer 20% before you stash it in the Bahamas. If you think there is a IP/trademark claim on how you serve coffee then this third party based in a tax haven can get their IP/trademark payment after it has been taxed at 20%.

Whilst the wealthy have the power to frame the debate they are I believe reaching a tipping point where if they had to come down and defend the position on question time then it would get pretty funny pretty quickly. Democracies are supposed to stop the 1% taking the wee-wee and they are only a few years from getting pitchforked.

consumers don't generate money

what would you tax at 20%

Wages and profit of any nature with zero exceptions. Pretty basic really. If you sell a packet of biscuits or an app then pay 20% on what you profited in doing so. Don't want to pay 20% tax then don't engage in the market and go to other more accommodating nations losing a 60million population market in the process. If you have a better solution then I am all ears.

Define profit.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Just because it falls between different legal jurisdictions and is therefore, legal (though a lot of what is reported isn't necessarily legal, at least from a corporate compliance perspective) doesn't mean it is particularly optimal for society.

Nor does the fact that it requires a leak for the situations to be publicly known suggest that they're doing it because they want to keep compliant with the law. I would imagine some of the attraction to these structures is the opacity that they have; usually to hide murky dealings (e.g. Glencore).

I'm guessing you were replying to me.

I didn't mention anything about falling between jurisdictions, partly because there is no info yet on whether that is the issue or not.

On Glencore, the link you provided appears to refer mainly to compliance with anti-bribery regs rather than tax regs. There is a mention that certain types of swaps they have used can be used for avoidance purposes but so far it appears to be speculation on that point.

On your other point about needing much more international coordination on tax avoidance etc, I guess you haven't read much about the OECD BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) initiatives. Enormous and far reaching exercise that materially impacts every corporate taxpayer of any size with operations in more than 1 jurisdiction.

As I said above (and this goes back to your old RBS Bankers thread - if you don't like it, legislate away. Although my point about how much this will bring in still stands - I await a few speculative replies.

mamba80

Without international co-operation, very little.

did strike me that when these various hurricanes came through the Caribbean, it was the state and charities that were expected to put them all back together and no one batted an eyelid.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Without international co-operation, very little.

See my point above about what is actually happening currently. This on top of all other anti-avoidance measures which are pretty extensive internationally and have cross border application where needed.

You're not the first on here to assume that the answer is 'not a lot' - which is simply wrong.

robert88

OK let's cut the bleeding heart crap.

How do I get onto this scam?

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

OK let's cut the bleeding heart crap.

How do I get onto this scam?

I like your honesty

PM me with your credit card details...

dinyull

Robert88 wrote:

OK let's cut the bleeding heart crap.

How do I get onto this scam?

You need over £300k to invest otherwise fees would wipe it out. Still in?

rick_chasey

Sure Stevo, but it's more than just tax, isn't it? I know that's a pre-occupation, but usually with offshore structures, as well as lacking much tax, they also lack a lot of transparency, and that is often the real draw.

There's a lot of murky behaviour that goes on in those places, and the lack of regulation or transparency isn't in the public's interest.

If it's all legal, why the secrecy?