Tugger Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Securitisation was driven by repackaging fees - tax havens just happened to be the most tax efficient way of achieving this end. If there were no tax havens, Granite and its ilk would just have existed onshore, subject to no regulation whatsoever (they were just asset holding vehicles - what's to regulate?). The Grauniad has a hard on for tax havens, for obvious reasons, and will seize on anything that furthers this agenda. The real point has been made on another thread. The diatribe about tax havens neatly conflates two separate issues: the first relates to people unlawfully hiding assets from the tax man, or using offshore centres to perpetrate frauds. That's a legitimate issue for other governments to take. The second, however, relates to legitimate tax avoidance. If transfers of real estate attract stamp duty, and transfers of shares in Isle of Man companies doesn't, transfer your real estate into an Isle of Man company. A one-off stamp duty hit, and from then on all that gets sold, stamp duty free, are the shares in the Isle of Man company. That's entirely legitimate. But Broon doesn't want anyone undercutting him on tax (even though Britain has laughed off similar initiatives in the past from the French et al), so he's quite happy to pretend it's all about the former, when in reality (at least for him), it's all about the latter. Every time you hear him bang on about tax havens, about British jobs for British workers, about Northern Ireland or about Fred Fucking Goodwin - every single time that you hear him talk about any of these things (and many others) - he is trying to distract the British public from one salient point: that if this mess is anyone's fault, it's HIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Oh, and one more point. Anyone who thinks that the easiest place to salt away ill gotten gains is HSBC in the Isle of Man needs their bumps felt. As it is (I believe) the only bank on the island that isn't a separate legal entity from its parent, it is the only place that is subject to both the UK and the Isle of Man money laundering requirements. If something didn't pass muster, that's as much a failing of UK regulation as it is of the Manx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurashima Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Oh, and one more point. Anyone who thinks that the easiest place to salt away ill gotten gains is HSBC in the Isle of Man needs their bumps felt. As it is (I believe) the only bank on the island that isn't a separate legal entity from its parent, it is the only place that is subject to both the UK and the Isle of Man money laundering requirements. If something didn't pass muster, that's as much a failing of UK regulation as it is of the Manx Seconded. Lloyds has something similar, but dont ask me to recant , its years since i was there. Anyroads, as much as the Guardian may have a hard on for the tax havens , its problem , and the problem for UK PLC , is that political parties are funded to a very high degree by non-doms. The fact that repeated legislative attempts to shut loopholes that allow this to occur have been voted down in the commons. Adog is not going to bite off its own tail, even if it knows thats where the fleas are. The guardian, as usual, is about 2 years behind the investigations which the likes of Private Eye have undertaken , and curiously never seems to mention Lord Ashcroft , whos non-dom status is remarkably dubious (Belize) , or other political figures who, under any rules which resulted in a crackdown on offshore jurisdictions , would stand to lose a considerable sum. Its tubthumping on a global scale from Broon , and even if Obama does go all out on offshoring, the majority of banks and financial institutions on Island have been avoiding business with US Nationals for years, due to the fact that the SEC over there is a serious beast to pick a fight with, unlike the toothless, spineless , Fundamentally Supine Authority that monitors the UK banking system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 You have to put all this in perspective. Despite it being the UK's "most trusted newspaper" the Grauniad circulation is about 300k. Compare that to the awful Daily Mail's 2.5m and you start to realise that anything the Grauniad prints is not exactly going to be at the forefront of the nation's consciousness. It's like all those on here banging on that Brown's stance on tax havens is all a ruse to defelect attention away from other things. I mean, have you ever heard such bollocks? Every media outlet at every level is screaming "RECESSION! RECESSION! RECESSION!" as loudly as it can. Every time the news comes on the telly it's the same issue. And is there anyone in the Northern Hemisphere who doesn't know it happened on Brown's watch? Like "tax haven" articles in the Grauniad is going to have any effect on that outpouring of doom and gloom. Jeeze... A lot on here would seem to need a reality check... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 You have to put all this in perspective. Despite it being the UK's "most trusted newspaper" the Grauniad circulation is about 300k. Compare that to the awful Daily Mail's 2.5m and you start to realise that anything the Grauniad prints is not exactly going to be at the forefront of the nation's consciousness. Not contradicting you, however -> The Guardian is one of the few British newspapers to emerge as a viable international web brand. The Guardian website is widely read internationally and particularly in the US. It is a well respected quality brand. ETA: is also obviously variously syndicated There is still a huge gap between web ad revenue and the declining newspaper advertising revenues (an issue which increasingly affects all print media - particularly those which used to depend upon classified ads). The Guardian is one of the few British print media brands which has a good chance of surviving after print. ETA: 'Daily Mail' will most likely live on only as a turn of phrase - a way of describing a particularly reactionary set of opinions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurashima Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 You have to put all this in perspective. Despite it being the UK's "most trusted newspaper" the Grauniad circulation is about 300k. Compare that to the awful Daily Mail's 2.5m and you start to realise that anything the Grauniad prints is not exactly going to be at the forefront of the nation's consciousness. I always like quoting circulation facts.(yours are accurate BTW , im not taking a shot at them). It amuses me to note that by playing the lowest common denominator (Race , Fear of Change , young girls with big tits) , any media outlet can become massively popular. Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, in October 2007 show gross sales of 2,400,143 for the Daily Mail. According to a December 2004 survey, 53% of Daily Mail readers voted for the Conservative party, compared to 21% for Labour and 17% for the Liberal Democrats. The Guardian had a certified average daily circulation of 358,844 copies in January 2009 – a drop of 5.17% on January 2008, as compared to sales of 842,912 for The Daily Telegraph, 617,483 for The Times, and 215,504 for The Independent Note that despite being respectable papers with historically accurate journalism , the combined circulation of the Telegraph , Times , Indy & Guardian is less than the Daily Mail. All national newspapers saw year on year circulation declines in January except the Daily Star which increased by more than 6%. The Star, which climbed 6.3% year on year, had an average circulation of 768,534 in January – helped by publisher Express Newspapers slashing the cover price to 20p before Christmas. Among the biggest fallers were the Daily and Sunday Sport. The daily title recorded a 28.59% year on year fall to average headline circulation of 72,592 in January. Its sister title recorded a fall of of 18.91%, to see an average circulation of 70,796 last month, according to the latest Audit Bureau of Circulations figures published today. The Independent on Sunday also saw a big year-on-year fall, dropping 24.40% compared with January 2008, recording a circulation of 178,798. Independent News and Media's daily, the Independent, experienced a fall of 14.02% to 215,504. Big Tits for 20p = profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The Independent on Sunday also saw a big year-on-year fall, dropping 24.40% compared with January 2008, recording a circulation of 178,798. Not good. I get very grumpy if I don't get my Saturday Grauniad. I know I'm getting old as on a holiday abroad it makes a low point. However despite the plugging of their sister Observer I much prefer the Indy on the Sabbath. I view newspaper circulation figures as good "state of the nation" indicators. Should the sales of The Wail, Excess and Torygraph start rising then just maybe it's time to think about emigrating... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 It's not the circulation figures, but the readership that is important in this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Is it? After all "It was The Sun wot won it!" Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.