Not a tax haven.

[Monkey boy]

As i said earlier in the thread the world is full of tax avoidance that is completely agreed on by most nations.

 

The fact of the matter is that countries like the UK cannot operate by dictating to very wealthy people, huge companies and employers what they will and won't do. It isn't good business for anyone.

 

The problem we have here is that it started out as people hiding money to evade taxation or taxation in interest earned. That is illegal and wrong. Steps were taken a long time ago to (especially in relation to the UK's relationship with the likes of the Crown Dependencies) to extinguish that. And that really isn't a big issue to the UK anymore and in reality wasn't that huge anyway. They'll have been disappointed with the results which is why you never hear anything about it.

 

So instead a small band of people start banging on, not about evasion, but about perfectly legal and legitimate avoidance that the UK government encourages and indeed supports.

And now Cameron et al are in a really tricky spot. If anything offshore finance centres (which is actually what the Isle of Man is) could well find this a watershed moment from a positive perspective. The world needs offshore finance centres. So what is it better to be? A relatively transparent one or Panama?

There will no doubt be the odd issue arising for the IOM out of this. There are 11.5m documents.

 

But it puts the government in a really tricky place because they are going to have to defend huge portions of it all. It's going to get interesting.

Why does the world need offshore finance centres?

[Barrie Stevens]

Now that's how democracy and accountability really works and shows how quickly things can be done. Well done Iceland.

 

Lesson for the IOM here.

 

Anyone else unconvinced by Cameron's 'nothing like that' denial ? Sounds like he's first run that one round the family lawyers....

 

Cameron would be a damn fool to lie. And he would be an even bigger fool not to take legal advice...If he gets rumbled then he is out!...

 

Sure he probably got the benefit of whatever his old man was up to!. My late Dad used to accept part of his salary in cash from a Greek shipowner N D Papalios. It was external Sterling via the National Bank of Greece...It was compulsory if you worked for the Greeks...The cash was untraceable being external Sterling...It was not my cash but I had the benefit as a child and later going to college etc...Cameron much the same but more so!

 

The tax man knew that the Greek shipowners paid their key workers partly in cash but the Greek fleet was then worked and run through the City so everyone backed off! (Just don't get greedy!)

 

Sadly a lot of people since then have got greedy...hence the aggro now unfolding!

[Barrie Stevens]

 

As i said earlier in the thread the world is full of tax avoidance that is completely agreed on by most nations.

 

The fact of the matter is that countries like the UK cannot operate by dictating to very wealthy people, huge companies and employers what they will and won't do. It isn't good business for anyone.

 

The problem we have here is that it started out as people hiding money to evade taxation or taxation in interest earned. That is illegal and wrong. Steps were taken a long time ago to (especially in relation to the UK's relationship with the likes of the Crown Dependencies) to extinguish that. And that really isn't a big issue to the UK anymore and in reality wasn't that huge anyway. They'll have been disappointed with the results which is why you never hear anything about it.

 

So instead a small band of people start banging on, not about evasion, but about perfectly legal and legitimate avoidance that the UK government encourages and indeed supports.

And now Cameron et al are in a really tricky spot. If anything offshore finance centres (which is actually what the Isle of Man is) could well find this a watershed moment from a positive perspective. The world needs offshore finance centres. So what is it better to be? A relatively transparent one or Panama?

There will no doubt be the odd issue arising for the IOM out of this. There are 11.5m documents.

 

But it puts the government in a really tricky place because they are going to have to defend huge portions of it all. It's going to get interesting.

Why does the world need offshore finance centres?

 

 

The world does not need them but competing jurisdictions do to attract investment..up to a point...But when you take advantage...that's a No! No!

[pongo]

It also happens in Africa a lot still where the rich don't trust their governments not to seize their assets ...

... and bank them in Panama.

[thesultanofsheight]

 

It also happens in Africa a lot still where the rich don't trust their governments not to seize their assets ...

... and bank them in Panama.

I would doubt anyone looking for stability or security as a hedge against local economic and political risks would use Panama. It really is for secrecy. They would be much more likely to go IOM, Jersey, Guernsey or Switzerland as a safe haven. I wouldn't trust anyone in Panama not to piss off with anyone's money to be honest. The only reason people like Putin and the Arabs use firms there is that they wouldn't dare piss off with their money otherwise they'd be dead. I doubt many people further down the food chain would take the risk on such a grubby and crooked jurisdiction.

[pongo]

I wouldn't trust anyone in Panama not to piss off with anyone's money to be honest ... a grubby and crooked jurisdiction.

The country's business and political leaders insist its financial system has become a paragon of integrity, and that Panama is being unfairly targeted by rich countries starved of revenue by the recession. The US is the biggest tax haven in the world, says Juan David Morgan, a lawyer, noting that America exempts foreigners from levies on interest. But they want to scapegoat us because we're visible and have a canal. It's a double standard.

 

Panama is indeed now far removed from its erstwhile financial free-for-all. Its banks are highly regulated. Opening an account requires a week of bureaucratic procedures and a respected watchdog agency monitors large transactions. Panama ranks fourth among 30 countries surveyed by the Financial Action Task Force (a body set up by the Group of Seven countries) in carrying out anti-money-laundering measures. And it taxes domestic economic activity fairly heavily, although it does leave foreign-sourced income untouched.

The Economist - Oct 29, 2009

[Shake me up Judy]

Barrie: So the super-rich Greek shipping magnates paid indirectly for your upbringing and education. I have to ask you mate: Where did it all go wrong ?

[thesultanofsheight]

 

I wouldn't trust anyone in Panama not to piss off with anyone's money to be honest ... a grubby and crooked jurisdiction.

The country's business and political leaders insist its financial system has become a paragon of integrity, and that Panama is being unfairly targeted by rich countries starved of revenue by the recession. The US is the biggest tax haven in the world, says Juan David Morgan, a lawyer, noting that America exempts foreigners from levies on interest. But they want to scapegoat us because we're visible and have a canal. It's a double standard.Panama is indeed now far removed from its erstwhile financial free-for-all. Its banks are highly regulated. Opening an account requires a week of bureaucratic procedures and a respected watchdog agency monitors large transactions. Panama ranks fourth among 30 countries surveyed by the Financial Action Task Force (a body set up by the Group of Seven countries) in carrying out anti-money-laundering measures. And it taxes domestic economic activity fairly heavily, although it does leave foreign-sourced income untouched.

The Economist - Oct 29, 2009

Wow a seven year old article from the Economist.

[pongo]

Wow a seven year old article from the Economist.

So what changed in 7 years? In what way is that article no longer interesting or relevant today?

 

I am not arguing here for or against any of this. What I am arguing is that everything we are seeing is part of an inevitable process.

[the stinking enigma]

are there any figures for how many houses in the island are owned by trust fund or shell companies?

[thesultanofsheight]

 

Wow a seven year old article from the Economist.

So what changed in 7 years? In what way is that article no longer interesting or relevant today?I am not arguing here for or against any of this. What I am arguing is that everything we are seeing is part of an inevitable process.

You assume that article is correct in the first place. Panama is the arsehole of global finance and always has been. It's never been much more than a grubby crooked money laundering and tax evasion centre no matter how much positive publicity it has managed to court. When centres such as here have been made to raise the bar substantially and have moved into a highly regulated space Panama has largely paid lip service to the whole thing but, surprise surprise, if you're banking money for Putin and other global leaders then maybe it's easier for you to dodge the bullet and obtain a cleaner bill of health than otherwise you might have? The Crown Dependencies have had to comply to high standards because arguably they've had less to hide (or potentially expose) at the top end of the global political tree and therefore have always had less leverage when it comes to international pressure. Places like Switzerland and Panama know where the bodies are buried and therefore those at the top of the global tree may well have been a bit more protective over the years.

Edited April 5, 2016 by thesultanofsheight

[pongo]

You assume that article is correct in the first place.

No I don't.

 

Although, in general, I do tend to trust The Economist - and there is really nothing to disagree with in the article. It isn't saying that Panama regulation is / was working. Only that it is / was very much more regulated than it was.

[thesultanofsheight]

 

You assume that article is correct in the first place.

No I don't.Although, in general, I do tend to trust The Economist - and there is really nothing to disagree with in the article. It isn't saying that Panama regulation is / was working. Only that it is / was very much more regulated than it was.

It's a bit like saying firing yourself out of a human cannon has got a lot safer as you now have a helmet.

[Barrie Stevens]

Barrie: So the super-rich Greek shipping magnates paid indirectly for your upbringing and education. I have to ask you mate: Where did it all go wrong ?

 

I was rather hoping you might have the answer!

[integrity]

 

Barrie: So the super-rich Greek shipping magnates paid indirectly for your upbringing and education. I have to ask you mate: Where did it all go wrong ?

 

I was rather hoping you might have the answer!

 

Interesting that on the BBC regional news tonight no one from the Manx Government was available to comment on the Panamanian revelations. Here we are thrust in front of the world as a tax haven and our well paid politicians are to shy to appear in public to defend us. Surprised?