pongo Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) You have to decide what purpose would a public register achieve? If business transparency increasingly becomes the norm, which seems likely to be the trend, then businesses based in places without an open register may start to seem irregular. That could create a potential disadvantage. That's my angle. The issue you raised about there being specific reasons why some companies might need to not be open for scrutiny would surely be covered by allowing a public opt out under specific circumstances. Seems to me that would offer the best of both worlds. Edited April 9, 2016 by pongo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) You have to decide what purpose would a public register achieve? If business transparency increasingly becomes the norm, which seems likely to be the trend, then businesses based in places without an open register may start to seem irregular. That could create a potential disadvantage. That's my angle.The issue you raised about there being specific reasons why some companies might need to not be open for scrutiny would surely be covered by allowing a public opt out under specific circumstances. Seems to me that would offer the best of both worlds. To be honest I've sort of got tired with this whole business transparency debate. If things are perfectly legal that should be the benchmark. Very few companies go into relationships with other companies without doing due diligence on who they are dealing with. A simple company to company process would suffice here; Company A signs a form that allows the Manx Registry to disclose certain details to Company B who they are engaging with over a contract. Better still just put them on the foreign register in the UK and they have to disclose that way. You also assume companies are trading when a lot of them aren't - they're just holding property of other assets on behalf of a private individual who has a right to privacy if they are paying all taxes due. What needs to be disclosed on this kind of company if the tax agencies and the police can already have the ability to make enquiries if they suspect there is abuse? The even worse argument to me is the moral argument. Even the Guardian Media Group, with the Guardian being the prime exposer in this situation, uses offshore structures and saved millions using Cayman entities when it sold its motoring publications a few years ago: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian-media-firm-makes-186m-but-pays-only-200000-tax-8675818.html For this reason there are very few people who can claim any moral highground in this debate either. If it's legal it's legal. If people think there is a moral debate then that is an issue of their own individual conscience and sense of right and wrong. Everyone's personal view is different but the law is the law. Edited April 9, 2016 by thesultanofsheight 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 I agree, Sultan. The moral argument is so flawed and it becomes very stretchable. No great fan of David Cameron, but what his father did is perfectly legal and understandable, it was a tax neutral arrangement. The problem was DC'S hypocrisy, that is the immorality in the face of hysteria. In truth, I don't buy the personal security argument; your enemies know you are rich and will find ways to extort, manipulate etc. without knowing the details of your financial arrangements. What is more important is each individual's right to organise their affairs, LEGALLY, as they wish without being scrutinised by others whose own morality or motives may be questionable. Do we have to trust that those looking at personal information are going to deal with it in an honourable way? What next? Will I have to publicise how I spend my money because, even legal, I may spend it on stuff that others consider immoral. Will my post be open to scrutiny by any Tom, Dick or Harry? For centuries, the ultimate authority was God who could look into your very soul. That was a great way to control the masses. God has now been usurped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) I agree, Sultan. The moral argument is so flawed and it becomes very stretchable. No great fan of David Cameron, but what his father did is perfectly legal and understandable, it was a tax neutral arrangement. The problem was DC'S hypocrisy, that is the immorality in the face of hysteria. I fell sorry for Cameron in a way and now they're protesting to get rid of him over something his dad did. How many in his circle of associates are second or third generation trust fund kids? Yes they're all toffs who have it coming as believed in some circles - but they are all pretty much well detached from how the wealth was originally generated years ago and can't really do much about their entitlements as the trusts probably deliberately had a dynastic element built into them to ensure the family was provided for over successive generations. Now he's having to explain the reason for why his dad did something in the 1960s when he was just a kid. No wonder he was evasive. He might not have actually known the full details. The litmus test for me here is that if Cameron is forced out by this us, Jersey, and Guernsey are pretty much doomed as the moral debate has gone crazy. Who the hell has the right to decide what code of morality should apply to a population as a whole when the activity in question is entirely legal? Edited April 9, 2016 by thesultanofsheight 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 I fell sorry for Cameron in a way and now they're protesting to get rid of him over something his dad did. How many in his circle of associates are second or third generation trust fund kids? Yes they're all toffs who have it coming as believed in some circles - but they are all pretty much well detached from how the wealth was originally generated years ago and can't really do much about their entitlements It could have been worse. His dad could have been Marty McFly and he now could be explaining away his incredibly successful and profitable betting history and the worn copy of the Sporting Almanac he keeps under his pillow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 I fell sorry for Cameron in a way and now they're protesting to get rid of him over something his dad did.How many in his circle of associates are second or third generation trust fund kids? Yes they're all toffs who have it coming as believed in some circles - but they are all pretty much well detached from how the wealth was originally generated years ago and can't really do much about their entitlements as the trusts probably deliberately had a dynastic element built into them to ensure the family was provided for over successive generations. Now he's having to explain the reason for why his dad did something in the 1960s when he was just a kid. No wonder he was evasive. He might not have actually known the full details. The litmus test for me here is that if Cameron is forced out by this us, Jersey, and Guernsey are pretty much doomed as the moral debate has gone crazy. Who the hell has the right to decide what code of morality should apply to a population as a whole when the activity in question is entirely legal? This following audio sums it up. It's a media frenzy over nothing much with Cameron's investment. It's just a complete character assassination on a small amount that he paid tax on. What the headlines should read is "man makes a modest investment and pays all his tax" http://iono.fm/e/275165 Oh the hypocrisy of calling someone a hypocrite: David Cameron 'should be sent to prison' over offshore investments, says Ken Livingstone http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-should-be-sent-to-prison-ken-livingstone-panama-papers-a6975341.html Ken Livingstone uses loophole to save £50,000 in tax http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/9105977/Ken-Livingstone-uses-loophole-to-save-50000-in-tax.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 To be fair to Cameron too he didn't go for Miliband when his dad was feed through the shredder a few years back http://news.sky.com/story/1148729/cameron-supports-ed-miliband-in-father-row Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 It's disgraceful the way Camerons personal finances are the subject of public debate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Funny though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commish Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Like Watergate, the important issue is not so much the original "offence", it's the apparent cover-up afterwards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Lol, what a generous gift from his mother. He might be in trouble here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 It really isn't about the tax, but the hypocrisy. I do feel sorry for him, because it must be gut-wrenching, but he was quick to denounce and deride others who were exploiting what they thought were legal arrangements. Perhaps the answer is to have a very simple tax system with a low rate applied to earnings above a certain level. No allowances, no complicated calculations of what you can or cannot claim against it, or what you have to declare. And if someone dies, there is no inheritance tax, because it already has been taxed. Just simple. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Barry the IoM has been exchanging information with the UK on UK based clients for over ten years. You are not telling us anything new. The IoM has made it stance clear. Information will be available to the appropriate authority . Not regional councils for which our affairs on a day to day basis have nothing to do with them. Bell seems to have done ok here. We've agreed pretty much to exactly what is in place at the moment. Not much extra burden and resisting the publishing online for all to see of beneficial owners is the right call. I know that. We all know that. Now read it all again please.. And by the way I published it first. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Why? Giving money to people is an ideal way of reducing inheritance tax. She just needs to survive 7 years from the gift for it to be tax free at death. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bees Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Inheritance, because you haven't got enough without your dead relatives money. I'm for 100% inheritance tax, it would save a lot of misery for old people. One family I know of are fighting over their parents stuff (& have been for years) and the parents are still alive, the children could afford the care home fees but argue and nothing is paid, it's really bad. My old neighbour was scared into a home by her greedy daughter 7 years after signing the house over, it's really sinister. Rules are made to be broken, not hearts 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.