The Panama Papers

seamus

osarusan wrote: »

Am I correct in understanding that your definition of 'immoral' is limited to something which causes direct suffering?

No, you'd be wrong in that understanding.

osarusan

seamus wrote: »

No, you'd be wrong in that understanding.

What is it then?

I ask because there seems to be an inconsistency in your post:

on the one hand, you say (regarding taxation) that if it stays within the law it is therefore not immoral, yet on the other hand, you say (regarding other things) that morality is unrelated to legality.

This distinction was explained by saying that some crimes involved causing direct suffering.

So, if that's not the entirety of the distinction between morality and legality, what is?

talking_walnut

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You obviously didn't read - or deliberately chose to ignore - the rest of my post which you didn't bother quoting:

I presume this was aimed at me.

No I did. I abbreviated your post to the point I was specifically responding to. I left out the rest of the post as it wasn't relevant to my question. See I've done it here again! Magic.

I'm trying to point out that you that there's no point in having an in-depth discussion about the problems with a system when you don't first define what that system is. Whether we like it or not, there's very real, legal definitions of what constitutes a tax haven, tax avoidance, etc. I'm not suggesting we all need to go study law for decade to be able to have a discussion like this, but people need to be specific about what exactly they're referring to. When I say "avoid paying tax", do I mean using legal methods to pay less tax or do I mean not reporting my real earnings to Revenue?

And before you haul me in front of the red alter Komrade, I'm very much of the opinion that most (all?) countries tax laws are fundamentally crap and in need of a major overhaul. It should not be possible for massive companies to pay such small amounts of tax. The percentage tax you pay should not be inversely related to your income.

BUT if you want to have an in-depth discussion about something, you need to establish what exactly you're discussing.

karma_

talking_walnut wrote: »

Are semantics not fundamental to this discussion? Before you can work to change something you need to establish exactly what you're trying to change. Otherwise we're just trashing around in the dark, making loud noises.

Closing those loopholes would be a good start, never mind the defense of semantics. 'Semantics are fundamental'... hahahahahaha good one

K-9

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's another talking point that people always bring up in tax evasion/avoidance debates: "Stopping it will never happen, so don't try...resistance is futile."

Western nations pretty much control the global financial network - and can stomp on entire countries (e.g. Russia) whenever politicians are sufficiently pissed off with that country.

There is already the level of influence and co-ordination being exerted right now, to make it happen if those efforts were applied to this problem. There is nothing stopping them using this power and influence, to kill tax havens, and to kill tax evasion/avoidance.

What is it actually you want, in practical terms?

talking_walnut

karma_ wrote: »

talking_walnut wrote: »

Are semantics not fundamental to this discussion? Before you can work to change something you need to establish exactly what you're trying to change. Otherwise we're just trashing around in the dark, making loud noises.

Closing those loopholes would be a good start, never mind the defense of semantics. 'Semantics are fundamental'... hahahahahaha good one

Can you please explain exactly how you close loopholes without an exact definition of what the problem is? I always thought loopholes are generally a result of people exploiting incomplete definitions or ambiguity in wordings.

By 'semantics are fundamental' I mean that we can only accurately discuss something if we both know (and agree upon) exactly what we're discussing. Otherwise loopholes might appear.....

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

Ah yes, a nice strawman on a lovely day.

These are of course completely different scenarios. Since murder is an assault on an individual causing direct suffering, whether it is legal or not does not impact on its morality. A better example to try and trip me up on would have been the legality of spousal rape. But since that too is an assault causing direct suffering, the morality of it too is unrelated to its legality.

Paying your tax does not fall into this bracket. When a society has created a legal framework which mandates a minimum level of taxation to be paid in order to fund that society, it is immoral to not pay that level of taxation. To make your contribution to society.

That's the fundamental of what you're saying. And me too.

And this is exactly what these companies and individuals are doing - paying the minimum level of taxation mandated by law. Therefore they are not doing anything immoral.

I'm going to use the same argument again - you claim your tax credits. You are reducing the tax you have to pay through legal methods. Are you being immoral? Why are you not forgoing your tax credits and paying what you should pay? And I know your answer is going to boil down to the amount of money you earn, but then your argument is that people who earn more money should be held to a higher moral standard than those who don't. Which is nonsense of course.

If the amount of taxation being collected is lower than necessary, it is not beholden onto the individual to volunteer to pay more, but on the state to redefine the minimum payable to meet society's needs. Be that through direct increases or legal measures to redirect the flow of funds.

We really need to put to tax credits argument to bed. I get a tax credit without doing anything. There is no way to not get it.

Tax avoidance implies an action, and it is by and large an action to avoid tax by using loopholes in the law or using foreign companies, or tax havens. It's not the standard deductions.

The legislators create the tax laws on the assumption that people play fairly, when they don't the spirit of the law is compromised.

seamus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

We really need to put to tax credits argument to bed. I get a tax credit without doing anything. There is no way to not get it.

Tax avoidance implies an action, and it is by and large an action to avoid tax by using loopholes in the law or using foreign companies, or tax havens. It's not the standard deductions.

The legislators create the tax laws on the assumption that people play fairly, when they don't the spirit of the law is compromised.

OK, let me frame my point in a different way.

KPMG approach you and tell you that for the price of €100 a year, they can cut your tax bill in half. The specifics are irrelevant as far as you're concerned. It's all legal and above board. Pay KPMG €100 and your tax reduces by 50%.

You'd avail of it. If you say you wouldn't then I'm no longer going to take you seriously.

Where are you drawing the line here between "it wouldn't be immoral if I did it, but it's immoral when rich people do it"?

KingBrian2

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What are you talking about? Saving small change is tax evasion?

The whole premise of the argument put forward is only the rich and powerful evade taxation usually through complex arrangement and while that is true is specific instances tax evasion happens in all areas of society. Engaging in criminal activity such as counterfeit and withdrawing small amounts and sending it overseas is another pernicious form of tax evasion. The notion that the large Pharmaceutical or Microsoft factory is weakening the tax intake for this country is nonsense. Go ask Bill Gates if he is paying the Irish tax rate your not going to get the same answer as your man from Ballymun.

20Cent

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The whole premise of the argument put forward is only the rich and powerful evade taxation usually through complex arrangement and while that is true is specific instances tax evasion happens in all areas of society. Engaging in criminal activity such as counterfeit and withdrawing small amounts and sending it overseas is another pernicious form of tax evasion. The notion that the large Pharmaceutical or Microsoft factory is weakening the tax intake for this country is nonsense. Go ask Bill Gates if he is paying the Irish tax rate your not going to get the same answer as your man from Ballymun.

Wtf are you on about?

KingBrian2

20Cent wrote: »

Wtf are you on about?

The constant iteration of what I have just stated on two occasions now is becoming fatiguing.:mad:

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

OK, let me frame my point in a different way.

KPMG approach you and tell you that for the price of €100 a year, they can cut your tax bill in half. The specifics are irrelevant as far as you're concerned. It's all legal and above board. Pay KPMG €100 and your tax reduces by 50%.

You'd avail of it. If you say you wouldn't then I'm no longer going to take you seriously.

Where are you drawing the line here between "it wouldn't be immoral if I did it, but it's immoral when rich people do it"?

No I wouldn't.

But most importantly I couldn't. The immorality is the PAYE worker paying 52% marginal while the top 0.1% pay nothing.

It's funny though. A lot of high PAYE earners support the real rich on their tax evasion, but it's them that suffer.

Eugene Norman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The constant iteration of what I have just stated on two occasions now is becoming fatiguing.:mad:

Yes but you are not making any sense. What you think is tax evasion isn't tax evasion. I already asked you why you think withdrawing money is non tax compliant? Utter rubbish.

And we are talking about avoidance, not evasion. Evasion is for the little people without recourse to KPMG.

KingBrian2

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Yes but you are not making any sense. What you think is tax evasion isn't tax evasion. I already asked you why you think withdrawing money is non tax compliant? Utter rubbish.

And we are talking about avoidance, not evasion. Evasion is for the little people without recourse to KPMG.

I said issuing sums to lend out to institutions outside the state is tax evasion. Evasion is part of Irish society by both the very rich and the middle and lwr classes. This does not even include tax avoidance which is perfectly legal.

Eugene Norman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I said issuing sums to lend out to institutions outside the state is tax evasion. Evasion is part of Irish society by both the very rich and the middle and lwr classes. This does not even include tax avoidance which is perfectly legal.

Firstly we are talking about avoidance, not evasion. Secondly I have no idea what you mean by issuing sums to institutions outside the state. Which isn't what you originally said.

And most PAYE workers evade nothing.

seamus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No I wouldn't.

Sure. "No! I would rather give Revenue €2,000 than give you €100. It's my civic duty!".

If that's you, then you share a different opinion to 99.9% of the rest of the country. I suspect it isn't though, it suits your argument to pretend you would prefer to pay more tax than you have to.

It's funny though. A lot of high PAYE earners support the real rich on their tax evasion, but it's them that suffer.

Well, as you quite know it's not evasion.

But also, there's a large difference between supporting it and recognising that nothing illegal or unethical has taken place. Do you think these high net worth individuals give a stuttering fnck what the average taxpayer thinks of them?

This is a problem entirely of the electorates' doing (across most jurisdictions) and is a problem for Governments to fix. But it suits government agendas to claim that these people are just being evil greedy meanies rather than admit the fact that they've failed in their fiscal policies.

Of course this is a voluntarily failure because the same people they're pointing the finger at, have been slipping the politicians cash to keep the tax regimes favourable.

But these are mostly anonymous and/or high-net worth individuals who don't care what you or I think.

You need to point the finger at governments and not let them point the finger elsewhere.

KingBrian2

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Firstly we are talking about avoidance, not evasion. Secondly I have no idea what you mean by issuing sums to institutions outside the state. Which isn't what you originally said.

And most PAYE workers evade nothing.

What i'm talking about is that huge segments of the population are outside the taxation system and people on here are placing all the emphasis on multinational companies as a source of tax evasion in the form of tax havens.

As I said what these companies do are perfectly legal and a huge problem is that people within society won't pay any taxes or charges or fees or fines. They just expect the exchequer to carry the can.

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

Sure. "No! I would rather give Revenue €2,000 than give you €100. It's my civic duty!".

If that's you, then you share a different opinion to 99.9% of the rest of the country. I suspect it isn't though, it suits your argument to pretend you would prefer to pay more tax than you have to.

Don't confuse your moral compass with everybody else's. As it happens I would prefer to pay less tax - the rich paying more might help that. But not that much less. I understand how society functions. And I dispute the 99.9%.

Well, as you quite know it's not evasion.

Yes.

But also, there's a large difference between supporting it and recognising that nothing illegal or unethical has taken place.

It's the unethical that's under discussion.

Do you think these high net worth individuals give a stuttering fnck what the average taxpayer thinks of them?

Er, no I don't. But they should. Of course that would mean PAYE workers, including high earning ones realising their actual interests.

This is a problem entirely of the electorates' doing (across most jurisdictions) and is a problem for Governments to fix. But it suits government agendas to claim that these people are just being evil greedy meanies rather than admit the fact that they've failed in their fiscal policies.

Governments try. Blaming the inability of a legal system to catch up with immoral activities doesn't excuse the immorality.

Of course this is a voluntarily failure because the same people they're pointing the finger at, have been slipping the politicians cash to keep the tax regimes favourable.

I doubt if that's universally true but surely you realise it is immoral if true. Or do you see no immorality in maximising tax reductions including buying off politicians?

But these are mostly anonymous and/or high-net worth individuals who don't care what you or I think.

What kind of argument is that. A gangster may not care what I think? Or the general population. We can discuss people's morality without regard to their own conscience or lack of it.

You need to point the finger at governments and not let them point the finger elsewhere.

That's a really odd argument. It's a false dilemma (government could be at fault in not applying laws internationally but that doesn't preclude the tax avoiders being wrong) and it undermines your argument to morality anyway.

If you think that avoidance is moral then why condemn legislatures for not legislating enough against avoidance?

Beasty

Eugene Norman wrote: »

If you think that avoidance is moral then why condemn legislatures for not legislating enough against avoidance?

Only governments can change the law to clamp down on tax avoidance. What was previously tax avoidance then becomes tax evasion changing the behaviour of taxpayers accordingly.

As a matter of interest, what would posters think if the Irish government were to clamp down on avoidance in a way that actually reduces the overall Irish tax take? That's the likely scenario here as many companies choose to take advantage of the low Irish tax rate.

Essentially this has been a cornerstone of Government policy to attract jobs to Ireland. In doing so these major companies are happy to pay tax at the Irish rate in preference to the, for example, US rate (which is more than 3 times higher). Remove those breaks and the jobs head off to another tax haven or back to the US, and the Irish tax take drops. That means the rest of us end up paying more. Is that what people really want? Higher taxes in Ireland? That is certainly a consequence of clamping down on international tax avoidance.

KingBrian2

Beasty wrote: »

Only governments can change the law to clamp down on tax avoidance. What was previously tax avoidance then becomes tax evasion changing the behaviour of taxpayers accordingly.

As a matter of interest, what would posters think if the Irish government were to clamp down on avoidance in a way that actually reduces the overall Irish tax take? That's the likely scenario here as many companies choose to take advantage of the low Irish tax rate.

Essentially this has been a cornerstone of Government policy to attract jobs to Ireland. In doing so these major companies are happy to pay tax at the Irish rate in preference to the, for example, US rate (which is more than 3 times higher). Remove those breaks and the jobs head off to another tax haven or back to the US, and the Irish tax take drops. That means the rest of us end up paying more. Is that what people really want? Higher taxes in Ireland? That is certainly a consequence of clamping down on international tax avoidance.

I would be in favour of more taxation as it ensures that people have a stake in society. Allow people avenues to get around paying tax and what are we saying. We are essentially creating a society that the rich put more into society by paying more so they are entitled to more so defo taxation should be fairly applied to the entire population. The more people paying taxation is a sign of a healthy nation. You get gross inequality when only a proportion of the population contribute anything and the rest are left to fend for themselves.

Beasty

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I would be in favour of more taxation as it ensures that people have a stake in society. Allow people avenues to get around paying tax and what are we saying. We are essentially creating a society that the rich put more into society by paying more so they are entitled to more so defo taxation should be fairly applied to the entire population. The more people paying taxation is a sign of a healthy nation. You get gross inequality when only a proportion of the population contribute anything and the rest are left to fend for themselves.

It's not just the tax take though. There are a hell of a lot of jobs dependent on FDI and I really do not think this country could afford not to be a tax haven

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

What is it actually you want, in practical terms?

Well to start with, as karma_ said, close all of the known loopholes - restore corporations to paying full tax - normalize the tax system so that it becomes progressive again, rather than being regressive to the point that the more wealthy someone is, the less of a percentage of all types of income they pay in tax.

Beyond that, kill all the ways that tax havens facilitate secrecy and lack of transparency - e.g. end the ridiculous situation, of allowing shell companies to exist without having to disclose their directors and such.
If you make all of this information visible, then global tax evasion/avoidance networks can be tracked a lot better, and so can the methods of evasion/avoidance, so they can be tackled.

Go after tax dodges that allow excessive inter-generational transfers of wealth, e.g. through trusts and such.
Start engaging in sanctions (by stealth if needs be politically) against countries that are facilitating tax evasion and a lack of transparency that facilitates such evasion.

Put in place a limited-time amnesty for people to declare their offshore funds, and to submit them for taxation - and if this amnesty is not availed of, look into measures for confiscating all of their offshore wealth, and putting these people into prison as well - after taking other measures to identify their funds.

Western nations are not averse to illegal means for achieving their foreign policy aims, practically all of the time: Spy on tax havens, send people to infiltrate tax haven firms (given western world control over finance, finding candidates should be easy), leak all of their internal data (e.g. like the Panama Papers), so that tax evaders can be identified and put in prison.


This is just a handful of things too - if the political will was there, all of this and more could be done.

KomradeBishop

Beasty wrote: »

It's not just the tax take though. There are a hell of a lot of jobs dependent on FDI and I really do not think this country could afford not to be a tax haven

It's Ireland being a tax haven, which argued contributed greatly to the corruption of our regulatory capacity (as I said earlier, one of the heads of financial regulation was a Cato Libertarian think-tank nutter) - which helped lead to our crisis.

Ireland playing the prostitute to international finance, and the excessive laxity in regulations that produced, has cost us dearly - a large part of the entire economic crisis here can be linked to that.

Ireland being a tax haven is simply not sustainable - other countries are going to crack down on us for it, and end it for us - it's only a matter of when, not if.

Beasty

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ireland being a tax haven is simply not sustainable - other countries are going to crack down on us for it, and end it for us - it's only a matter of when, not if.

While I agree to some extent with this sentiment I would add a couple of points

Ireland's attractiveness to multinationals has massively eased the problems following the crash in 2008. Jobs in these companies were maintained and taxes continued to be paid by these businesses.

Ireland is now benefitting from the wider crackdown on tax havens with it's position within the global economy and the EU making it a "safe" tax haven. That's precisely why we have seen an upturn in exchequer recepits in recent months.

What Ireland now needs to do is use extra cash it is getting in to pay down debt and move the domsestic economy to a position that is sustainable. They should certainly not be any more "giveaway" Budgets and focus should be on correcting some fundamental problems with the the country's "balance sheet". That way, as and when some of these major corporations decide to move business elsewhere there will be much less pain within the remaining economy

I suspect though that it will be more a case of politicians continuing to be short sighted and buying off the voters in the hope tomorrow will look after itself

KomradeBishop

Ireland's attractiveness to multinationals and international finance, due to the regulatory environment it fostered and how it attracted predatory institutions who very likely helped engage in regulatory capture of key government agencies (and who definitely seem to have, in the case of the central bank and financial regulation), almost certainly worsened (if not outright being a root cause of) the crash in 2008 - not help it.

We wouldn't have such huge debts, if it weren't for the above. You don't pay down debts either, when interest rates are so low - that's the time to expand spending (which can be used to reshape the domestic economy, as you say), because the interest servicing costs are so low - you can actually reduce debt vs GDP by growing the economy (growing GDP) in this way, in the medium/long term - trading a short term rise in debt vs GDP for a faster medium/long-term reduction of it.

K-9

I think if all Corporations paid 12.5% that would be fair enough, but even then countries will compete on tax rates. Tax breaks aren't a bad thing in themselves, the problem is when you've companies abusing the principle through really what is just creative accounting.

Pressure can definitely be put on individual tax havens, Switzerland has had to change banking laws as an example but there are other problems too, Delamere is basically a tax haven in the US and for us, if we start losing our disproportionate share of multinational investment...

Beasty

K-9 wrote: »

Pressure can definitely be put on individual tax havens, Switzerland has had to change banking laws as an example but there are other problems too, Delamere is basically a tax haven in the US and for us, if we start losing our disproportionate share of multinational investment...

Delaware highlights the absurd way in which tax havens can be defined. US resident corporations pay 35% tax on their worldwide income. In addition they pay State taxes. Delaware does not levy any State taxes and so falls into the definition of "tax haven" that was used in the past by the OECD. Despite that definition no longer having any real meaning many people still look towards it as some kind of "official" definition

Companies based in Delaware pay their 35% tax. They also pay State taxes on profits earned in other US States. However despite that tax obligation of nearly 3 times the equivalent Irish one, they are considered to be benefiting from a tax haven.

KingBrian2

While it is important to spread the taxation it is also the duty of the gvt to provide essential services that are fit for purpose Health, Housing & Home improvements. If this means allowing the private sector participate in some way than I am all for it.

Agent Coulson

Malta car bomb kills Panama Papers journalist

The journalist who led the Panama Papers investigation into corruption in Malta was killed on Monday in a car bomb near her home.

Daphne Caruana Galizia died on Monday afternoon when her car, a Peugeot 108, was destroyed by a powerful explosive device which blew the car into several pieces and threw the debris into a nearby field.

A blogger whose posts often attracted more readers than the combined circulation of the country’s newspapers, Galizia was recently described by the Politico website as a “one-woman WikiLeaks”. Her blogs were a thorn in the side of both the establishment and underworld figures that hold sway in Europe’s smallest member state.

Her most recent revelations pointed the finger at Malta’s prime minister, Joseph Muscat, and two of his closest aides, connecting offshore companies linked to the three men with the sale of Maltese passports and payments from the government of Azerbaijan.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb-kills-panama-papers-journalist?CMP=fb_gu

Suckit

Looks like the Pandora papers will be blowing the panama papers out of the water yet still unlikely anything will happen. Crazy stuff to read.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/panama-fears-new-pandora-papers-expose-on-tax-havens-2562120

https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/global-investigation-tax-havens-offshore/

https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/pandora-papers-world-leaders-stash-billions-dollars-secretive-offshore-system-2021-10?_ga=2.186085164.402884013.1632212932-90471

Ash.J.Williams

bit Click baity naming loads of prominent rich people only to say they are not in the list in the article 😂

Suckit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117972917#Comment_117972917

Weirdly that is the 8th paragraph, if you are referrring to the last link. I guess they can choose which snippet is shown when linked in forums like this new setup.

I noticed if you don't hit return after posting a link, the quotes don't appear, but forgot to do it (meant to) when posting those four. Crazy though. going by the other papers released, they must all be in different holdings. I wonder where the Irish lot are. 😏 Knowing some of them, they're probably under a mattress on the Aran Islands. physical cash, and about as off shore as they are willing to go. Wouldn't be surprised to see a heap of current and ex politicians in the papers though.

riclad

What's a surprise is that the uk is a big tax shelter, rich people use shell company's to buy property , this can be use to avoid paying tax and also launder money, why do so many russians buy expensive houses in london its a safe investment and a way to make money dissappear

But then there was a report about American billionaires a few months ago they pay maybe 1 per cent tax it's very easy to pay little tax if you have experts to advise you how to do it

There's supposed to be a new tax law globally it means corporations will have to pay at least 10 to 20 per cent tax no matter where they make a profit

riclad

Most people don't do the things mentioned in the Panama papers eg how many Irish people can spend 4 million buying one apartment, its mostly about how the rich, celebs and Politicans from certain country's can launder money or reduce their tax bills by using shell company's eg the top 10 per cent of earners

wandererz

No mention of Ireland at all.

Feets

So is there an excel list anywhere I can spend an evening 'ctrl and f' ing??

riclad

I read theres not many americans on the list cos under the american tax system ,its very easy for the rich to pay very little tax using legal tax shelters, buy shares ,art, etc .european countrys have much stricter laws re how much tax you have to pay on income and capital gains .theres a new law coming into force ,any payment of 600 dollars or more must be reported to the irs , internal revenue service in america.