Moomar65 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I've just watched the Panorama program and was interested to hear peoples views. I think it was very heavily weighted against Lichtenstein and the IOM was being "tarred with the same brush" even though it was only mentioned twice in passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spermann Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The Isle of Man got off very light, just a quick glimpse of one of our postage stamps. Jersey got hammered, their Chief Minister is a bit wet and the 'Granite' organisation was slated. In general terms i think that Obama will focus on Cayman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The Isle of Man got off very light, just a quick glimpse of one of our postage stamps. I don't think the Island got off too lightly, IMO it was bad press for us with no voice from our side. Viewers are pretty fickle and so it's a blanket "Tax havens including the IOM are dodgy". Your average UK viewer who already hates paying tax is going to be even more pissed off when a programme like Panorama says things like "Tax havens are taking away billions of your tax money and you are going to have to pay it back unless we do something." Okay we are well regulated here, the UK viewers don't know that though - what does it matter to the UK if a 'dodgy' finance industry is brought to it's knees to score some political oneupmanship - Hey look what we did, we saved you all this tax.... Our postage stamp was the biggest one too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Link for those that missed it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hd..._Me_if_You_Can/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Link for those that missed it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hd..._Me_if_You_Can/ At least we haven't got a chief minister that looks and sounds like a mad professor Oh, wai... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 smeared without a shred of evidence being produced, come on, surely they can do better than that pathetic effort but I suppose that's the dumbing down of tv programmes these days, I suppose he's the best they can afford since they blew the budget on that twit Ross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 of course we're a tax haven you think the finance, movie, betting and yacht registration companies come here for the weather? or the terrace chippy? dont kid yourselves, if this was star wars, we'd be on the dark side. get over it and pray the legislators have other stuff to do. Yes of course it's a tax haven but I suppose it depends on the definition used. To many people a tax haven suggests a place where money is hidden to avoid taxation elsewhere and with leglislation in recent years it is more difficult to 'hide' your money because of tax agreements with more countries. If the simple definition of a place with lower taxation to attract more deposits is used then the island (and the UK and many other countries) are tax havens. But we should also consider the value of the Terrace Chippy, that rusty statue of Norman Wisdom and the magnificent 8 store shopping complex called The Strand as prime reasons why businesses come to the island. KPMG chose Mann because of its chips, cheese and gravy above its low taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I can see the argument that where companies evade or avoid paying taxes they legitimately owe they should be pursued for it. It becomes sour grapes when they pursue companies or individuals relocate to offshore jurisdictions to take advantage of a more competitive tax and regulatory environment. For example, it baffles me that US citizens can be required by the IRS to continue paying US taxes on their income long after they move to another country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Panorama used to be a serious journalistic program, but in the last few years, especially since Vine took over presenting and I assume a new production team are running with it, has dumbed down dramatically and become sensationalist. If you watch the whole program again you'll only spot a couple of 'facts', and see nothing new that hasn't already been said in a few newspapers at least a year ago. The half mentioned 'UK doing something about all this' was a vague reference to the current offshore review reporting this year IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 Panorama used to be a serious journalistic program, but in the last few years, especially since Vine took over presenting and I assume a new production team are running with it, has dumbed down dramatically and become sensationalist. If you watch the whole program again you'll only spot a couple of 'facts', and see nothing new that hasn't already been said in a few newspapers at least a year ago. The half mentioned 'UK doing something about all this' was a vague reference to the current offshore review reporting this year IMO. That's probably a good thing in the case of this programme. The people who matter, ie our potential customers, won't be taken in by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I can see the argument that where companies evade or avoid paying taxes they legitimately owe they should be pursued for it. It becomes sour grapes when they pursue companies or individuals relocate to offshore jurisdictions to take advantage of a more competitive tax and regulatory environment. For example, it baffles me that US citizens can be required by the IRS to continue paying US taxes on their income long after they move to another country. They aren't required by the IRS to continue paying US taxes if they give up their US citizenship. If, on the other hand they prefer to have the US federal government looking out for interests, then they will be liable for federal taxes, but only on income above a set limit, which was about $80,000 last time I heard. The US has tax agreements with most trade partner countries that takes into account the tax paid already in that country. US Citizens only ever have to pay when the tax they would have to pay in the other country would be less than they would pay on the same income in US Federal taxes. US citizens in the UK wouldn't have to pay anything, US citizens here might. In return on any extra tax they may, or may not, have to pay, US citizens get to vote, receive social security payments, apply for federal grants, avail themselves of the worlds most powerful consular service and are protected by the most expensive military organization on Earth, and pass the benefit of US citizenship on to their children. What US citizens actually living in the US get from the federal government is probably far less in terms of spending per head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I can see the argument that where companies evade or avoid paying taxes they legitimately owe they should be pursued for it. It becomes sour grapes when they pursue companies or individuals relocate to offshore jurisdictions to take advantage of a more competitive tax and regulatory environment. For example, it baffles me that US citizens can be required by the IRS to continue paying US taxes on their income long after they move to another country. They aren't required by the IRS to continue paying US taxes if they give up their US citizenship. If, on the other hand they prefer to have the US federal government looking out for interests, then they will be liable for federal taxes, but only on income above a set limit, which was about $80,000 last time I heard. The US has tax agreements with most trade partner countries that takes into account the tax paid already in that country. US Citizens only ever have to pay when the tax they would have to pay in the other country would be less than they would pay on the same income in US Federal taxes. US citizens in the UK wouldn't have to pay anything, US citizens here might. In return on any extra tax they may, or may not, have to pay, US citizens get to vote, receive social security payments, apply for federal grants, avail themselves of the worlds most powerful consular service and are protected by the most expensive military organization on Earth, and pass the benefit of US citizenship on to their children. What US citizens actually living in the US get from the federal government is probably far less in terms of spending per head. When you put it like that it's probably not such a bad deal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 The Guardian is doing a little series on tax avoidance/evasion this week. One of todays articles talks about companies using Puerto Rico as an offshore tax haven. Isn't Puerto Rico effectively another US state? So shouldn't Obama and his team be looking a little closer to home? And last nights program was pretty rubbish. What on earth was the scene with John Sergeant emerging from the sea about? More suited to ITV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 John Sergeant? Should have gone to SpecSavers, old boy. Forget about Puerto Rico. What about Vice-President Biden's home state of Delaware????? One of the biggest of them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Sorry, John Sweeny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.