Not a tax haven.

[Lxxx]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax avoidance is not immoral. It's logical and legal.And anyone would do it given the chance.

And now he starts to realise...

 

Go on....you're almost there...

Let's all get a violin out for those who can't do it. <sigh>

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, the attitude of "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".

 

And people wonder why the "common man" are a bit pissed at people with the same attitude of Notwell - I bet you cheated at Monopoly a lot as a kid.

Do they play Monopoly in Tory classrooms ? . Of course they do it's all about having more than one property . Then when they have their 3 or 4 ' renovated barns in the countryside ' they complain that there is a huge need to build more houses. Thereby moving the commoners out of the villages they were born in and freeing up yet more lovely pads for the privalidged. Can't wait for his answer, somewhere along the lines of ' you are lucky to have a house, and it's worth £ 50 a week of your minimum wage to live on the Island you were born on. Stop griping and get back to your Kipper Smoking, and after you've finished, brush the cave '

Behave. Just because someone has a balanced view of the world doesn't mean they're any more privileged than you or I.

You are I assume suggesting that Right Wing fanatics have a ' balanced ' view of the World and it's finances. Well that's a new angle that many will be pleased to hear. All is not lost

 

 

You're starting to sound quite silly.

[woolley]

Starting?

[pongo]

 

 

you be certain the Guardian have been told to provide some balance by the powers that be.

That's a bit tin-foil-hat TBH.

 

Not really. The powers-that-be in this case are Guardian Media Group, who would like to deflect attention from their Cayman Island-based accounts.

 

It doesn't deflect attention from that.

 

If they wanted to deflect attention they would replace the Panama stuff with more articles about Princess Kate and Alexa Chung.

[Lxxx]

 

 

 

you be certain the Guardian have been told to provide some balance by the powers that be.

That's a bit tin-foil-hat TBH.

 

Not really. The powers-that-be in this case are Guardian Media Group, who would like to deflect attention from their Cayman Island-based accounts.

 

It doesn't deflect attention from that.

 

If they wanted to deflect attention they would replace the Panama stuff with more articles about Princess Kate and Alexa Chung.

 

 

I think they might be playing to the section of their readership with more than one brain cell.

[pongo]

I think they might be playing to the section of their readership with more than one brain cell.

Either way, the fact remains that it does nothing to deflect attention. It's an opinion piece. Is all.

 

I am surprised they didn't open the comments on that article in order to let the mob vent. The purpose of the comments is to increase site traffic and therefore advertising revenue. Which is the cynical business they are in.

[notwell]

 

 

 

Tax avoidance is not immoral. It's logical and legal.

 

And anyone would do it given the chance.

 

And now he starts to realise...

 

Go on....you're almost there...

 

Let's all get a violin out for those who can't do it. <sigh>

 

 

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, the attitude of "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".

 

And people wonder why the "common man" are a bit pissed at people with the same attitude of Notwell - I bet you cheated at Monopoly a lot as a kid.

 

I never cheat at anything.

 

I think you overplay how much the "common man" actually gives a fuck. Very few people care. Most people are happy to pay less tax legally if they can.

 

You are too busy listening to Corbyn and Millipede thinking there is some massive rising of the masses against companies or individuals that, with the full permission of the UK government, structure their tax affairs exactly as they have been encouraged to. You have to look at the amount of government employees in the UK with Personal Service Companies to see that.

 

And it's nothing to do with "what i've got". I pay more than my fair share of tax quite willingly. If I can find a way of reducing that legally i'll do so. As anyone else with any common sense would actually.

[Lxxx]

 

I think they might be playing to the section of their readership with more than one brain cell.

Either way, the fact remains that it does nothing to deflect attention. It's an opinion piece. Is all.

 

I am surprised they didn't open the comments on that article in order to let the mob vent. The purpose of the comments is to increase site traffic and therefore advertising revenue. Which is the cynical business they are in.

 

 

Which attempts to explain to the rabid socialist element of their readership that offshore financial centres aren't all bad, as they are the ones who are waving copies of the Guardian in the air with a clenched fist baying for Cameron's blood. Poor things must be awful confused.

[thesultanofsheight]

 

 

I think they might be playing to the section of their readership with more than one brain cell.

 

Either way, the fact remains that it does nothing to deflect attention. It's an opinion piece. Is all.

I am surprised they didn't open the comments on that article in order to let the mob vent. The purpose of the comments is to increase site traffic and therefore advertising revenue. Which is the cynical business they are in.

Which attempts to explain to the rabid socialist element of their readership that offshore financial centres aren't all bad, as they are the ones who are waving copies of the Guardian in the air with a clenched fist baying for Cameron's blood. Poor things must be awful confused.

It's quite interesting to see how this is playing out as its all gone a bit weird and I can't help wondering where the debate will go next. However it just shows you how much of the global economy is 'offshore' now no matter how vocal the lefties, the anti capitalists, and the other objectors might think they are about tax avoidance (which is a concept they don't even understand anyway other than to concoct stupid and illogical moral arguments around legal activities). Now we have steel jobs in Port Talbot which might well be saved by an offshore bid and a huge number of UK workers employed by online global businesses who are based outside of the UK and people have worked out that you can't turn money down just because you're falsely sniffy about where it came from. Even the Guardian flipped out Autotrader and its motoring interests via entities in Luxembourg and Cayman so is in no position to pour scorn on any other business for operating 'offshore'. It's just being part of the global business system. If all these apparently abusive offshore holding businesses ever pulled the plug the effect in the UK employment market would be huge and maybe the reality of that is starting to hit.

[pongo]

I can't help wondering where the debate will go next

Another big leak soon after this story seems as if it has died down. That would be my guess. That's been the pattern with slacktivist leaktivism. Each story bigger than the previous, and no way of knowing who is responsible. This must surely now be the new inevitable challenge for hackers - and to many it will seem a noble cause.

[thesultanofsheight]

 

I can't help wondering where the debate will go next

 

Another big leak soon after this story seems as if it has died down. That would be my guess. That's been the pattern with slacktivist leaktivism. Each story bigger than the previous, and no way of knowing who is responsible. This must surely now be the new inevitable challenge for hackers - and to many it will seem a noble cause.

I'm not sure. I see that they are now saying they won't put this on the net wikileaks style as there are huge data protection issues surrounding individual peoples searchable personal data. It would probably result in a huge pile of legal action that would go on for years. Any similar leaks would be the same. It's been fine so far directing leaks at political figures or establishments like governments but this has pulled in thousands of everyday people and very private personal data like passport copies, addresses, phone numbers and highly private personal financial information. It's a legal minefield that will point back to the German newspaper who claims it organised the leak and made the data searchable. I don't think this will set any template for future leaks at all because it's hard to see what public interest has been satisfied here. If all the planning was legal (I'm sure it isn't by the way), or they can't prove that a lot of what they have exposed about thousands of individuals is specifically illegal, then all they've done is create the world biggest breach of various country's data protection acts.

Edited April 14, 2016 by thesultanofsheight

[Skeeter Boy]

The headline story in today’s Guardian is “UK and European allies plan to deal ‘hammer blow’ to tax evasion” – “George Osborne agrees to cooperate with France, Germany, Spain and Italy on exposing shell firms and overseas trusts’. I think this article is signalling two major changes for Tax Efficient regimes like ours: 1) from now on the UK is going to work tightly with the other European States to end tax secrecy, and 2) beneficiaries of Trusts as well as Companies are now in the mix.

 

The article talks about ‘new rules’ announced this week, without specifying what these are. I suspect these new rules will reflect Wolfgang Schäuble’s (German Federal Finance Minister), ten-point plan to combat tax evasion (see below). At the heart of Schäuble's ten-point plan is an internationally-linked-up ‘transparency’ register, which lists the true owners of all companies, and now it seems also trusts. The EU has already agreed to implement by 2017 the fourth Money Laundering Directive; a directive that requires each national government to establish a register of the beneficial owners of companies. It seems from to the Guardian article the implementation date for this networked up database will be 1January 2017, and also that even companies closed down during 2016 will be included.

 

Schäuble has wanted for some time to strengthen global actions against money laundering and/through tax havens. What has now accelerated his plans is the release of the Panama Papers. As French finance minister, Michel Sapin, said on Wednesday: “[The Panama Papers have] breathed new life into the tax evasion crackdown, they have accelerated the process. What has become clear is that we need complete cross-border transparency and international tools to deal with the problem.” Things are moving faster than most people expected.

 

Schäuble has been a ‘man on a mission’, and now like he is leading a 'team on a mission'. We need to take heed of these sweeping changes; the tide it seems has irreversibly turned.

 

Schäuble’s ten-point plan:

(Note; the following is my best interpretation of the situation, and may not be 100% accurate)

1. Industrial Money Laundering

Within Germany itself, Schäuble wants to strengthen action against money laundering, especially to go after industrial scale money laundering. Having already introduced stricter rules against money laundering in the financial sector, Schäuble is now taking on non-banking sectors.

2. Changes to the Statue of Limitations

The statute of limitations would only apply to tax evaders, if they become compliant with the new reporting requirements for companies with international connections. There would be no time ‘limit’ on those who don’t.

3. Criminal Prosecutions

Schäuble wants to introduce tougher penalties for companies. Under the current system, prosecutions fail in misconduct trials, because the inability to prove personal culpability. The current bar for convictions is simply too high. After his changes, companies and their management teams will be more accountable.

4. Transparent tax shelters

Providers of tax relief schemes will be obliged to make discloses to tax authorities.

5. Money Laundering Registers

Schäuble wants the national transparency register that is planned for Germany to will be systematically networked to the world. Tax administrations will also have access to money laundering registers. These registers should be also be accessible to non-governmental organizations and journalists. In return to providing access Schäuble expects that non-governmental organizations and journalists will also provide authorities with the results of their research.

6. Company Registers showing Beneficial Ownership

These registers will make corporate structures more transparent. The EU’s fourth Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Directive means that there is already agreement that these registers will be introduced in EU countries. The EU member states must implement the fourth directive nationally by 2017. Schäuble is campaigning worldwide for registers of beneficial owners of to be created.

7. Monitoring

He wants the automatic exchange of information to have a monitoring mechanism. And he wants monitoring to be global by 2017.

8. Initiative 2017

Schäuble wants to ensure that as many possible states and territories as possible will implement worldwide the new standard for the automatic exchange of information. This should start in 2017. So far nearly 100 countries have signed up to this initiative.

9. Blacklists

The various national and international "black lists" of tax havens are to be unified. Schäuble wants the leadership of this process to be transferred to an international organization such as the OECD.

10. Automatic exchange of information

Schäuble is urging Panama to join the international automatic exchange of information in tax matters and to ensure that inactive and insubstantial companies and their shareholders can be identified. If Panama does not cooperate Schäuble wants Panama and any other uncooperative jurisdictions to be prevented from accessing financial transactions internationally.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Skeeter Boy

[NoTail]

Looks like a reasonable list. I bet that a lawyer or accountant somewhere will find a loophole.

[rmanx]

The main differences between tax avoidance and tax evasion:

 

1. If you're the one writing the laws, chances are it will be tax avoidance.
2. If you can afford the right advice, it will be tax avoidance.
3. If it all goes pear-shaped and someone finds you out, claim you were given bad advice and let your solicitor sort it out (whether you get away with it will depend on the cost of said solicitor).
4. And if you can't afford any of the above...pay your taxes you filthy peasants, stop being a leech on society.

Edited April 15, 2016 by rmanx

[NoTail]

Another good list.

[pongo]

I was wondering what DMS Mossack Fonseca had been using. It seems almost unbelievable that it was not encrypted and that nobody had noticed from the logs or warnings that such a huge amount of data was being accessed.

 

I found this: Was Mossack Fonseca using their own crappy Document Management Software?

 

From the website it looks like the firm built its own home grown “secure cloud” and then decided to sell it other firms.

I bet the people who sell DMSs are currently snowed under answering urgent queries about security.

Edited April 15, 2016 by pongo