The Panama Papers

Frynge

BattleCorp wrote: »

Despicable why? Did he do anything illegal?

No but neither did Jimmy Car do anything illegal yet on foot of the likes of Cameron and others critising him over his morally wrong actions he was shamed into paying over £500,000 last year alone.

leavingirl

BattleCorp wrote: »

Despicable why? Did he do anything illegal?

Seriously ???

That same cu*t who wants more surveillance, more powers to snoop on people and when asked about his affairs told people to stop invading his privacy.

That same cu*t who publicly humiliates and pontificates to people. The two faced pork lover.

If people in the UK are not up in arms about this then they deserve more misery and harship.

If they say yes to the Brexit, that'll stick it up to him.

Aidric

Deleted User wrote: »

If they say yes to the Brexit, that'll stick it up to him.

I think there is a real danger that a protest vote off the back of this could skew the balance in favour of the brexit camp.

Realistically speaking 30k is pennies compared to some of the figures in these papers but the difficulty for Cameron is that he has been spearheading a campaign of transparency over tax havens.

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

If they say yes to the Brexit, that'll stick it up to him.

It'd be great to have the little englanders out of Europe. Nobody really needs or wants them anyway.

The immediate fallout alone would be well worth it. Scotland would want back in. Wales will say they never agreed to it. NI will do something with flags

There's 5 months of entertainment in it at least.

leavingirl

George Osbourne BDSM this time last year:

Tax evasion is not just illegal it's immoral.People evading tax should be treated same as common thieves.This agreement helps us tackle them

marienbad

My name is URL wrote: »

It'd be great to have the little englanders out of Europe. Nobody really needs or wants them anyway.

The immediate fallout alone would be well worth it. Scotland would want back in. Wales will say they never agreed to it. NI will do something with flags

There's 5 months of entertainment in it at least.

and you are calling them 'little Englanders' !

My name is URL

marienbad wrote: »

and you are calling them 'little Englanders' !

Most of those that want out are simple minded idiots with notions of a middle england that hasn't existed since the 1700's, so yeah... what better to call them?

Let them **** off and go it alone. Little england, without its clout as an empire. People afraid of those they once tried to colonize and control

They already look pathetic. Voting to abandon the ship they built for themselves... like drowning rats. It's great

The death of their empire is cause enough for celebration. The death of their national union would be even better

josip

My name is URL wrote: »

Most of those that want out are simple minded idiots with notions of a middle england that hasn't existed since the 1700's, so yeah... what better to call them?

Let them **** off and go it alone. Little england, without its clout as an empire. People afraid of those they once tried to colonize and control

They already look pathetic. Voting to abandon the ship they built for themselves... like drowning rats. It's great

The death of their empire is cause enough for celebration. The death of their national union would be even better

Meanwhile in Panama...

20Cent

It's not necessarily illegal not to buy your round but it makes u a bollix.

blue4ever

leavingirl wrote: »

George Osbourne BDSM this time last year:

Tax evasion is not just illegal it's immoral.People evading tax should be treated same as common thieves.This agreement helps us tackle them

There's a lot of bluster and misinformation in this story - perpetrated mainly by people with a chip in their shoulder.

There are over 300 companies from Ireland mentioned in the documents. A clear distinction has to be made between Tax Evasion and (legal) Tax Avoidance - those distinctions are not being made.

And as for Cameron - nothing illegal (His PR effort was disastrous surrounding this affair). As for Panama - all the tut tutting is deplorable. It's like they were some sort of banana republic. Cameron Blairmore Investment Trust, a perfectly legitimate investment vehicle.

Anyone hazzard a guess where that trust is now? (In terms of its administration)

Iwasfrozen

My name is URL wrote: »

Most of those that want out are simple minded idiots with notions of a middle england that hasn't existed since the 1700's, so yeah... what better to call them?

Let them **** off and go it alone. Little england, without its clout as an empire. People afraid of those they once tried to colonize and control

They already look pathetic. Voting to abandon the ship they built for themselves... like drowning rats. It's great

The death of their empire is cause enough for celebration. The death of their national union would be even better

That's a mighty fine chip you have on your shoulder there.
Their Union has been in existence for over 300 years and it's not going to fall in your lifetime.

The_Valeyard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a mighty fine chip you have on your shoulder there.
Their Union has been in existence for over 300 years and it's not going to fall in your lifetime.

If England leaves the EU, I'd give it less than twenty. So confident am I, I'd even bet money on it.

Iwasfrozen

The_Valeyard wrote: »

If England leaves the EU, I'd give it less than twenty. So confident am I, I'd even bet money on it.

20 eh? How much?

blue4ever

The_Valeyard wrote: »

If England leaves the EU, I'd give it less than twenty. So confident am I, I'd even bet money on it.

If the United Kingdom leaves - England (spiritually) left during Thatchers' reign;)

Fratton Fred

My name is URL wrote: »

Most of those that want out are simple minded idiots with notions of a middle england that hasn't existed since the 1700's, so yeah... what better to call them?

Let them **** off and go it alone. Little england, without its clout as an empire. People afraid of those they once tried to colonize and control

They already look pathetic. Voting to abandon the ship they built for themselves... like drowning rats. It's great

The death of their empire is cause enough for celebration. The death of their national union would be even better

You are (not unsurprisingly) very mistaken about the people that are considering voting to leave.

But then, your post was based more on your own bigotry than any actual facts.

indioblack

My name is URL wrote: »

It'd be great to have the little englanders out of Europe. Nobody really needs or wants them anyway.

The immediate fallout alone would be well worth it. Scotland would want back in. Wales will say they never agreed to it. NI will do something with flags

There's 5 months of entertainment in it at least.

Yeah, we really want to get rid of these net contributors to the EU.

Samaris

My name is URL wrote: »

Most of those that want out are simple minded idiots with notions of a middle england that hasn't existed since the 1700's, so yeah... what better to call them?

Let them **** off and go it alone. Little england, without its clout as an empire. People afraid of those they once tried to colonize and control

They already look pathetic. Voting to abandon the ship they built for themselves... like drowning rats. It's great

The death of their empire is cause enough for celebration. The death of their national union would be even better

Should have gone to specsavers. Pretty impressively myopic post.

youreadthat

My name is URL wrote: »

Most of those that want out are simple minded idiots with notions of a middle england that hasn't existed since the 1700's, so yeah... what better to call them?

Let them **** off and go it alone. Little england, without its clout as an empire. People afraid of those they once tried to colonize and control

They already look pathetic. Voting to abandon the ship they built for themselves... like drowning rats. It's great

The death of their empire is cause enough for celebration. The death of their national union would be even better

It's VERY convenient for someone Irish to imagine the UK is England enslaving some colonies called Wales and Scotland (and N.I of course), and imagining Scotland and Wales are entities that hate England and think the same thing, but there are many 'Scotlands' and even more 'Englands'. Yorkshire has more people than Ireland ffs, you can't be so simplistic about people just because you have a chip on your shoulder and you're full of adrenaline after beating your chest shouting "1916" for two weeks. Chill out, read a book or 5.

Esel

youreadthat wrote: »

It's VERY convenient for someone Irish to imagine the UK is England enslaving some colonies called Wales and Scotland (and N.I of course), and imagining Scotland and Wales are entities that hate England and think the same thing, but there are many 'Scotlands' and even more 'Englands'. Yorkshire has more people than Ireland ffs, you can't be so simplistic about people just because you have a chip on your shoulder and you're full of adrenaline after beating your chest shouting "1916" for two weeks. Chill out, read a book or 5.

Will Yorkshire people vote in sufficient numbers?

Fear the kneejerk reaction...

Jim Murphy 69

Where's Permabear, is he in hibernation all of a sudden?

Read what the apologist Charles Moore (Spectator no less) has to write about this;

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/hate-tax-havens-try-imagining-a-world-without-them/

"If they did not exist, the competitive element would be reduced, and taxes would go up even more", I believe is the choice of lines from his laughable argument.

Greyfoot

snubbleste

beach_walker

Emma Watson is the latest big name to come out in the Panama papers. Her London apartment was bought through an overshore company. She claims it was for privacy reasons and not at all for tax/money reasons. Sure...

steddyeddy

beach_walker wrote: »

Emma Watson is the latest big name to come out in the Panama papers. Her London apartment was bought through an overshore company. She claims it was for privacy reasons and not at all for tax/money reasons. Sure...

Ah miss holier than thou.

Eugene Norman

beach_walker wrote: »

Emma Watson is the latest big name to come out in the Panama papers. Her London apartment was bought through an overshore company. She claims it was for privacy reasons and not at all for tax/money reasons. Sure...

The oppressive patriarchy made her do it.

jamo2oo9

Does she avoid anything by buying an apartment through an offshore company?

Eugene Norman

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Does she avoid anything by buying an apartment through an offshore company?

Not yet :-p

It can be used to avoid future capital gains tax I think.

Also -- It's odd to use a company to buy a house anyway. Under English law that would be benefit in kind.

PopePalpatine

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Not yet :-p

It can be used to avoid future capital gains tax I think.

Also -- It's odd to use a company to buy a house anyway. Under English law that would be benefit in kind.

How much would you like to bet that there's a loophole for that added in by a Tory government?

2RockMountain

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Also -- It's odd to use a company to buy a house anyway. Under English law that would be benefit in kind.

Isn't the posh half of London owned by offshore BVI and Panamanian companies? One of the problem with the 'iceberg' homes with huge digging down to the foundations is that when the digging goes wrong and the neighbouring house starts cracking, the house owner can't be traced.

KingBrian2

2RockMountain wrote: »

Isn't the posh half of London owned by offshore BVI and Panamanian companies? One of the problem with the 'iceberg' homes with huge digging down to the foundations is that when the digging goes wrong and the neighbouring house starts cracking, the house owner can't be traced.

Tax evasion happens everywhere.

Allinall

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Tax evasion happens everywhere.

I'd say most of it is tax avoidance, using existing (legal) loopholes.

KingBrian2

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Tax evasion happens everywhere.

Allinall wrote: »

I'd say most of it is tax avoidance, using existing (legal) loopholes.

Tax avoidance IS tax evasion, just that it requires clever lawyers to outfox the taxman.

KingBrian2

Deleted User wrote: »

Tax avoidance IS tax evasion, just that it requires clever lawyers to outfox the taxman.

Afraid you are mistaken. Tax evasion and tax avoidance are completely separate.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Tax avoidance IS tax evasion, just that it requires clever lawyers to outfox the taxman.

No it is not.

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

Tax avoidance IS tax evasion, just that it requires clever lawyers to outfox the taxman.

In that case anyone who has ever benefited from a tax exemption, deduction or credit; are criminals, since they are all measures designed to avoid paying a fixed rate of tax.

HamsterFace

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tax avoidance IS tax evasion, just that it requires clever lawyers to outfox the taxman.

Buying your fags in the duty free is tax avoidance.

Buying your fags on Moore Street is tax evasion.

Hope this clears it up.

K-9

AdamD wrote: »

No it is not.

Tax evasion is illegal, avoidance isn't though can be morally wrong.

Allinall

K-9 wrote: »

Tax evasion is illegal, avoidance isn't though can be morally wrong.

Not sure why you think it can be morally wrong?

Could you give an example?

Bear in mind that tax avoidance is something every single taxpayer does.

Claiming your credits is tax avoidance.

K-9

Allinall wrote: »

Not sure why you think it can be morally wrong?

Could you give an example?

Bear in mind that tax avoidance is something every single taxpayer does.

Claiming your credits is tax avoidance.

Morally wrong would be the stuff the G20, the EU, US etc. are trying to crack down on.

Obviously morally wrong means some may not see anything wrong at all, eg. an Apple company not tax resident anywhere was seen as morally wrong, though I'm sure some thought nothing wrong with that at all and great tax avoidance.

Beasty

You are always going to find shades of grey between what is morally acceptable and what is morally unacceptable. Everyone's morals are different. Hence the only way you can properly evaluate something like this is whether it's legal. If something that is legal is considered morally unacceptable the solution is to change the law - that's exactly what this current OECD initiative is about. Same applies in all walks of life - people will push towards, but attempt to keep inside, the legal limit.

ThisRegard

Allinall wrote: »

Not sure why you think it can be morally wrong?

Could you give an example?

U2 and their evangelicalism, and they move some of their business operations outside of Ireland in order to pay less tax.

Beasty

ThisRegard wrote: »

U2 and their evangelicalism, and they move some of their business operations outside of Ireland in order to pay less tax.

And equally there are many companies who have moved operations to Ireland and happily pay tax here, employing individuals who pay plenty of income tax here.
What was their primary motivation? In many cases avoiding US tax.
Is that morally wrong? - you will find different peope have different answers. Those making a living out of it over here probably consider the avoidance of US tax morally acceptable. Those living off the Welfare State which is partly funded by these US multinationals may well consider it morally acceptable also.

seamus

Talking about "moral" is nonsense tbh. They only moral obligation on any person or corporation is to pay the amount of tax you are legally obliged to.

Otherwise you're claiming that there's a moral obligation to overpay tax. Which everyone would agree is complete crap.

"But they don't pay enough tax!". That's in your opinion. In reality they are paying the amount of tax they are legally obliged to. You can't apply arbitrary rules to suit your own sensibilities.

If the level of taxation paid by anyone is unsatisfactorily low, the obligation is not on those companies/individuals to voluntarily overpay their tax, but is on the state to ensure that the tax laws capture the correct amount of tax.

Witch-hunting through the Panama papers is a convenient distraction for countries to pretend this isn't a problem of our own making. It's our insular tax regimes that are at fault, not the companies who use them.

ThisRegard

Beasty wrote: »

And equally there are many companies who have moved operations to Ireland and happily pay tax here, employing individuals who pay plenty of income tax here.
What was their primary motivation? In many cases avoiding US tax.
Is that morally wrong? - you will find different peope have different answers. Those making a living out of it over here probably consider the avoidance of US tax morally acceptable. Those living off the Welfare State which is partly funded by these US multinationals may well consider it morally acceptable also.

I generally have no issues with companies or individuals doing it, I'm sure my own company does it, and if I was in the position I'm sure I'd do it. I'm not one for jumping on the morally right or wrong bandwagon.

The issue I had was specifically was with U2 doing it considering all the moralising Bono does on this issue. Maybe morally wrong is not the right phrase, rather hypocritical. I was probably being a bit flippant with my initial comment without putting too much thought into it.

love humanity

Interesting how the organisation releasing these papers is funded by the American military and its primary target was Vladimir Putin who isn't even mentioned in the papers, but a 'friend' of his is. : )

K-9

seamus wrote: »

Talking about "moral" is nonsense tbh. They only moral obligation on any person or corporation is to pay the amount of tax you are legally obliged to.

Otherwise you're claiming that there's a moral obligation to overpay tax. Which everyone would agree is complete crap.

"But they don't pay enough tax!". That's in your opinion. In reality they are paying the amount of tax they are legally obliged to. You can't apply arbitrary rules to suit your own sensibilities.

If the level of taxation paid by anyone is unsatisfactorily low, the obligation is not on those companies/individuals to voluntarily overpay their tax, but is on the state to ensure that the tax laws capture the correct amount of tax.

Witch-hunting through the Panama papers is a convenient distraction for countries to pretend this isn't a problem of our own making. It's our insular tax regimes that are at fault, not the companies who use them.

Sorry Seamus, but morals do matter, if people think the laws are too lax well that means some people and companies are making a value judgement and deciding it is moral to use every trick in the book to minimise their tax, engaging in a race to the bottom to keep every penny they can.

Yer man Green was an example recently in Britain. Or Clerys using legal loopholes and abusing the spirit of the law with redundancies.

Companies should be held to a standard as well, they've boards and shareholders making these decisions.

ohnonotgmail

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry Seamus, but morals do matter, if people think the laws are too lax well that means some people and companies are making a value judgement and deciding it is moral to use every trick in the book to minimise their tax, engaging in a race to the bottom to keep every penny they can.

Yer man Green was an example recently in Britain. Or Clerys using legal loopholes and abusing the spirit of the law with redundancies.

Companies should be held to a standard as well, they've boards and shareholders making these decisions.

companies exist to maximise profits for shareholders. If they do this legally what is the problem? If the law is too lax then fix the law.

K-9

If the law is too lax that means there is something wrong?

Starbucks did nothing wrong yet paid extra tax, why was that?

steddyeddy

If course morals come into laws.