Tax Havens - a good thing ?

kabayiri

ninky wrote: »

this maybe a crazy idea (i'm good at those!), but could we have a labelling system that let the consumer know the goods and services they were paying for were from a company that was resident in the UK for tax purposes. i'd try to support them.

This is exactly what the tax justice network have proposed.

Similar to the 'this bag of crisps contains 12% salt' message you would have 'this company pays 29% corporation tax' !
:rotfl:

kabayiri

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'm with you there John. I don't see how you can stamp out tax havens. Another part of the problem is that the money is so well hidden. In the UK it may be offshored first through the Channel Islands, but then onto a second destination, say the Caymans or Panama. How do you trace it through multiple jurisdictions?

How do you trace it? Short answer ....it is very difficult.

All trademarks have to be lodged with the government however, and where they are registered. This makes following things like the registration of something like the Barclays logo a good starting point.....

Smit1970

Pennywise wrote: »

Don't think so. That article looks to be talking about tax evasion (that's the illegal form where people should be paying tax in say the UK but are hiding the money somewhere else). Then good old Gordon Brown starts confusing evasion with avoidance - if GB can't tell the difference what hope is there for us mere mortals!. Tax avoidance re tax havens is where people arrange themselves to be outside the UK for enough days so that they're not resident in the UK for tax purposes. There's quite a difference. It doesn't sound as if Gordon is tackling the latter at all - that's just leaving the field open for more footballers and popstars to just pop into the UK to do their stuff and then pop out again - he's showing no sign of attacking that kind of legal avoidance.

Indeed. Many people in this very topic fail to understand the difference between evasion and avoidance. The government hope to make the two words freely interchangeable.

It is the duty of a company serving its shareholders to minimise its tax bill as effectively as it can. If that means conducting some business in a lower tax regime then fine.

It is the right of any person to legally organise his affairs in order that he pays minimum tax. We are not locked in the UK, we still (just) have choice.

Tax avoidance is legal and not to be thought of as a "criminal act" as one person on this topic asserted. The UK is a very high tax country; it is only natural for people to want to move their assets out of a place such as this.

The problem now is that Socialist grasping governments worldwide are trying to pressure tax havens into complying with foreign laws. When they fail to achieve this, they impose sanctions in other ways - observe the UK Government not protecting the interests of Guernsey in its representations with Iceland (as it is obliged to do) over the Landsbanki affair. That has pretty much finished Guernsey as a retail banking centre, as Guernsey is not safe for your cash any more; see here: Banking in Guernsey.

Most of the people who use tax and banking havens do so legally. All the wails of "criminal money" by the great unwashed is merely them recycling government propaganda. Criminal money flourishes quite happily where it pleases masquerading as straight money.

kabayiri

Smit1970 wrote: »

It is the duty of a company serving its shareholders to minimise its tax bill as effectively as it can. If that means conducting some business in a lower tax regime then fine.

I don't buy into this at all.

Tax is there in theory to support the operation of our society. If wealthy individuals and organisations avoid paying large quantities of tax, the burden falls on the less well off.

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

if a multi-national felt that it was losing tax advantages or under pressure to do so there's a good chance that would feed back into the company through job cuts or moving of their factories overseas.

good riddance i say. any company like this is unlikely to have much in the way of corporate responsibility or offer little more than minimum wages to most their workers. let's clear the way for the more responsible.

ninky_2

Smit1970 wrote: »

It is the duty of a company serving its shareholders to minimise its tax bill as effectively as it can. If that means conducting some business in a lower tax regime then fine.

anyone who expects access to a population in the form of a customer base has a duty to support the living conditions of that population. as such, they should pay tax.

if not, no access.

gingerdad

The largest tax haven in the world is the City of London, look at the Non Doms etc.. so before people spout on about other "Tax Havens" look closer to home......

GD

Conrad

Any of us here buy Bonos music?

Generali

Conrad wrote: »

Any of us here buy Bonos music?

Not since the Joshua Tree.

Has Bono become a tax haven?

kabayiri

Bono is a tax avoider.

Erm, so is Sir Bob Geldoff now you're asking. Both his properties are registered offshore.

I think it was calculated that the Rolling Stones have paid a grand total of 1.6% of their income in tax. Brown Sugar indeed....