[BBC News] Manx 'should avoid G20 blacklist'

[parchedpeas]

Paul Moulton says 'one thing that is possibly certain'.

 

How can something be possibly certain? BBC standards ain't what they used to be etc.

[Sebrof]

Same is true of the City of London, is that a tax haven?

 

Well it's not a country, so it can hardly be a tax haven. But if we apply this to the UK:

 

We have low taxes. But the UK does not.

We have a tax cap for the rich. But the UK does not (except temporarily in limited cases)

We offer a safe place for your money. Wrong, and nothing to do with being a tax haven, but the UK has proved rather safer than the IOM.

We can help you to avoid tax. So can anybody.

 

So really, the same generally ISN'T true of the City of London. No surprise there.

 

S

[laxeygal]

We are SO misunderstood.

 

We have low taxes

We have a tax cap for the rich.

We offer a safe pace for your money.

We can help you to avoid tax.

 

BUT we are not a tax haven

 

Have you considered joining the flat earth society?

One word ....Kaupthing.

The only thing anyone on this rock seems to agree on is jobs - WHEN they go we'll all be f***%%ked

[keyboarder]

The only thing anyone on this rock seems to agree on is jobs - WHEN they go we'll all be f***%%ked

I disagree.

[Snaipyr]

The only thing anyone on this rock seems to agree on is jobs - WHEN they go we'll all be f***%%ked

I disagree.

 

So do I.

[Gladys]

Same is true of the City of London, is that a tax haven?

 

Well it's not a country, so it can hardly be a tax haven. But if we apply this to the UK:

 

We have low taxes. But the UK does not.

We have a tax cap for the rich. But the UK does not (except temporarily in limited cases)

We offer a safe place for your money. Wrong, and nothing to do with being a tax haven, but the UK has proved rather safer than the IOM.

We can help you to avoid tax. So can anybody.

 

So really, the same generally ISN'T true of the City of London. No surprise there.

 

S

So how does the UK's basis of taxation of non-doms work, where they can elect to be taxed on a remitance basis at 30K work? Is that not a tax cap? The issue is far more complicated than you are acknowledging.

 

Fact is, non-doms have flocked to the UK to enjoy a tax environment which only taxes their income receipts into the UK; there was a substantial change in that environment last year, but the changes have still offered concessions to stop the outward migration. The UK still wants to foster the mega wealthy non-dom and to an extent that is what has fed the IOM as the non-doms can maintain their non-UK assets offshore and out of that tax environment. However, when they want to enjoy those offshore assets they will become subject to UK taxation.

 

Now which tax regime has created that set of circumstances?

[Sebrof]

Same is true of the City of London, is that a tax haven?

 

Well it's not a country, so it can hardly be a tax haven. But if we apply this to the UK:

 

We have low taxes. But the UK does not.

We have a tax cap for the rich. But the UK does not (except temporarily in limited cases)

We offer a safe place for your money. Wrong, and nothing to do with being a tax haven, but the UK has proved rather safer than the IOM.

We can help you to avoid tax. So can anybody.

 

So really, the same generally ISN'T true of the City of London. No surprise there.

 

S

So how does the UK's basis of taxation of non-doms work, where they can elect to be taxed on a remitance basis at 30K work? Is that not a tax cap? The issue is far more complicated than you are acknowledging.

 

Fact is, non-doms have flocked to the UK to enjoy a tax environment which only taxes their income receipts into the UK; there was a substantial change in that environment last year, but the changes have still offered concessions to stop the outward migration. The UK still wants to foster the mega wealthy non-dom and to an extent that is what has fed the IOM as the non-doms can maintain their non-UK assets offshore and out of that tax environment. However, when they want to enjoy those offshore assets they will become subject to UK taxation.

 

Now which tax regime has created that set of circumstances?

 

As I understand it, the UK scheme relates only to foreign earnings left offshore by people who are domiciled off-shore. A non-dom City high-flyer earning £2million a year in London would still pay tax on his UK earnings - amounting to £800,000. In the IOM he would pay £100,000.

 

Also, many of these people, especially Americans, would be taxed in their home country on world-wide earnings.

 

I do agree it's a substantial benefit for those with large amounts of off-shore capital. There needs to be international agreement on who taxes what.

 

S

[pongo]

AFAIK the main issue which of concern which is being raised by govts re tax havens relates to information secrecy - rather than being about competitive tax advantages etc.

 

It's about the sharing of banking information - also about public reporting and about who actually owns companies, trusts etc.

 

I have no idea how or whether that would affect the IOM.

 

Everyone knows that different countries levy different rates of tax currently.

[Slim]

We have low taxes. But the UK does not.

We have a tax cap for the rich. But the UK does not (except temporarily in limited cases)

We offer a safe place for your money. Wrong, and nothing to do with being a tax haven, but the UK has proved rather safer than the IOM.

We can help you to avoid tax. So can anybody.

 

The UK does have competitive tax rates and structures that help you reduce your tax liability designed to attract the wealthy

The UK does negotiate individual tax caps

 

It's as much a tax haven as the isle of man. Competitive tax isn't the same as a tax haven, in my view.

[Albert Tatlock]

A non-dom City high-flyer earning £2million a year in London would still pay tax on his UK earnings - amounting to £800,000. In the IOM he would pay £100,000.

 

I do agree it's a substantial benefit for those with large amounts of off-shore capital. There needs to be international agreement on who taxes what.

It would be possible for the likes of people (e.g. the likes of Fred the Shred etc.) to live here and work in the UK for a few days a week, 'earn' vast sums of money, keep it here and pay tax here. People do that, including me when contracting sometimes, classed as being resident here for tax purposes. That's tax avoidance, which is legal.

 

AFAIK the main issue which of concern which is being raised by govts re tax havens relates to information secrecy - rather than being about competitive tax advantages etc.

 

It's about the sharing of banking information - also about public reporting and about who actually owns companies, trusts etc.

 

I have no idea how or whether that would affect the IOM.

OECD efforts are all about removing secrecy e.g. for the likes of people working in the UK/US and resident in the UK/US etc. but who keep money/assets hidden offshore that they should be paying tax on - interest, Capital gains etc. and are not - that's tax evasion which is illegal.

 

 

There is nothing immoral in my book about avoiding paying tax you don't have to. IMO Garden Broon uses his stance on tax havens to hide his own inefficencies and incompetence, in that most estimates of the money he and his cronies waste suggest this is the equivelant of 10% of GDP - or around £1500 a year each even for the basic rate taxpayer. You can't argue with the fact that the UK tax take of GDP is a clear 3% above the average for the OECD. Plus, worse still for the UK, Broon has borrowed even in the good times.

 

On the plus side though, if it wasn't for Garden Broon, we would indeed be in dire straights on the island - as there wouldn't be anyone seeking any method they can to avoid the consequences of Broon.

[Knoxville]

They wont get rid of it, do you have any idea of the mechanics involved in it.

 

I've heard nothing of this, so its prob just pure hear say.

 

You need to get out more Knoxville! (Or maybe its me that needs to get out!)

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...355/355we06.htm

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/isle-of-man-busi...TION.2181123.jp

 

These are just a couple of the many articles published about the changes to the VAT sharing arrangements. These changes were made at the behest of the UK Treasury so you can be assured that they won't result in more VAT coming our way! These changes were one of the drivers for the £100k tax cap.

 

God I read that nearly a year go, I thought there had been some more movement on it since.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens.

[ermo]

Gunna bring in a new National Regulator aren't they? Well that's what Mandelson said Monday night on Channel 4 news. The regulator will 'look after' the likes of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. We were still classisfied as a Tax Haven in that interview.

[Slim]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/0...mmit-tax-havens

 

• Those that have substantially implemented the standard, including most advanced countries such as Britain, the US, France, Germany and China

 

• Tax havens that have committed to – but not yet fully implemented – the standard. These include Andorra, Monaco, Gibraltar and Lichtenstein

 

• Financial centres that have committed to – but not yet fully implemented – the standard. These include Switzerland, Singapore, Chile and three EU countries – Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria

 

• Those that have not committed to the standard, including Costa Rica, Malaysia, the Philipines and Uruguay.

[Tugger]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/0...mmit-tax-havens

 

• Those that have substantially implemented the standard, including most advanced countries such as Britain, the US, France, Germany and China

 

• Tax havens that have committed to – but not yet fully implemented – the standard. These include Andorra, Monaco, Gibraltar and Lichtenstein

 

• Financial centres that have committed to – but not yet fully implemented – the standard. These include Switzerland, Singapore, Chile and three EU countries – Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria

 

• Those that have not committed to the standard, including Costa Rica, Malaysia, the Philipines and Uruguay.

 

It's a laugh how far the Grauniad is up Brown's arse at the moment. There have been two articles this week about how Jacqui Smith is a fab person and what she's done is just an honest mistake and people shouldn't be making such a fuss about it (I cam imagine them saying the same thing if a Tory Home Secretary had done the same thing), and the Graun seems to be omitting the rather interesting facts (for its readership) that at least three UK dependencies that are largely regarded as tax havens are on the whitelist - a message that will be taken as meaning that Brown hasn't stopped the rot at all