Panama Papers

vivatifosi

Interesting Beeb piece on the history of Panama as a tax haven:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35967590

Jonbvn

Conrad wrote: »

Singapore has low taxation and is arguably about as successful an economy one could find with no mass chavvy benefits culture.


I was amazed how the place looks now, to the extent I am staying there a couple of days as part of my summer holls.

Sing is great for a week or two. However, the "thou shall not" does wear thin after a few months. IMHO, it is SE Asia lite.

It reminds me of the joke:

Q: "Where is the best place for a night out in Hong Kong?"
A: "Manila"

The best thing about Sing is the airport and it's close proximity to all the other SE Asian countries.

chewmylegoff

Moby wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-david-cameron-father-tax-bahamas

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35961422

Asked if Cameron family money is held in a tax haven fund, a Downing Street spokesman said: "It's a private matter":mad:

Class and connection counts for so much in this country. Ask Kim!:-

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/04/kim-philbys-stasi-tape-reveals-secrets-of-his-success-as-cold-war-spy

'Kim Philby, Britain’s most notorious cold war traitor, told an audience of East German spies after his defection that he was able to avoid being rumbled for so long because he had been “born into the British governing class”.
In a video recording of a speech given to Stasi agents in 1981, uncovered by the BBC, Philby also described how he was able to walk out of secret service headquarters every night with his briefcase stuffed with secret documents and reports.
The overall impression given by the excerpts of Philby’s speech broadcast so far by the BBC is of a British intelligence service staffed by ill-disciplined and inept upper-class twits.'

I'm not sure what the scandal is supposed to be about Cameron's father.

There must be hundreds of thousands of hedge funds which are set up in exactly the same way. Many investment funds operated by UK fund managers (including mainstream funds which many people's pensions are invested in) are incorporated in an offshore location for the purpose of avoiding having to pay UK corporation tax on their actitivies, so that they can increase returns to investors.

The structure is accepted by governments around the world and everyone knows about it, it isn't some big secret.
None of these funds pay UK corporation tax because SHOCK HORROR they are not UK companies and they do not operate in the UK. If there is a UK based maangement company, it will pay UK corporation tax on its profits.

The tax havens where these funds operate from usually require the company to have locally resident directors which is effectively a form of protectionism to ensure local employment.

Anyone in the UK who has a pension plan that is managed on their behalf probably has at least some of their money invested in a similar structure.

Any income that a UK resident (for tax purposes) receives from a holding in an offshore fund is liable to UK tax, as are any capital gains that investor makes when disposing of the holding.

Successive governments have had the option of banning access for UK investors to such vehicles if they wanted to, or charging withholding tax on outgoing investments etc, but they have chosen not to.

So a question for you Moby, if this is all so bad, why did the Labour governments between 1997-2010 preside over a significant expansion of the hedge fund industry operating from London, employing exactly the same tax structures?

Has the Labour Party received any donations from hedge funds organised in this way at all? Will it be returning those donations after Corbyn's comments today, or will it be keeping them because it cannot physically afford to pay them back? Do you think it is ok for Labour to attack Cameron on the basis that it is currently doing despite Labour having itself been part funded by hedge fund donors who exploit the same arrangements? Or is tax avoidance legitimate as long as it funds champagne socialism.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I'm not sure what the scandal is supposed to be about Cameron's father.

There must be hundreds of thousands of hedge funds which are set up in exactly the same way. Many investment funds operated by UK fund managers (including mainstream funds which many people's pensions are invested in) are incorporated in an offshore location for the purpose of avoiding having to pay UK corporation tax on their actitivies, so that they can increase returns to investors.

The structure is accepted by governments around the world and everyone knows about it, it isn't some big secret.
None of these funds pay UK corporation tax because SHOCK HORROR they are not UK companies and they do not operate in the UK. If there is a UK based maangement company, it will pay UK corporation tax on its profits.

The tax havens where these funds operate from usually require the company to have locally resident directors which is effectively a form of protectionism to ensure local employment.

Anyone in the UK who has a pension plan that is managed on their behalf probably has at least some of their money invested in a similar structure.

Any income that a UK resident (for tax purposes) receives from a holding in an offshore fund is liable to UK tax, as are any capital gains that investor makes when disposing of the holding.

Successive governments have had the option of banning access for UK investors to such vehicles if they wanted to, or charging withholding tax on outgoing investments etc, but they have chosen not to.

So a question for you Moby, if this is all so bad, why did the Labour governments between 1997-2010 preside over a significant expansion of the hedge fund industry operating from London, employing exactly the same tax structures?

Has the Labour Party received any donations from hedge funds organised in this way at all? Will it be returning those donations after Corbyn's comments today, or will it be keeping them because it cannot physically afford to pay them back? Do you think it is ok for Labour to attack Cameron on the basis that it is currently doing despite Labour having itself been part funded by hedge fund donors who exploit the same arrangements? Or is tax avoidance legitimate as long as it funds champagne socialism.

2 wrongs don't make a right.... pretty basic. I would also argue that there is a considerable difference between paying into a pension which (unkowingly) may avoid paying uk tax and specifically structuring a business and hiding behind bearer shares purposefully and implicitly for the purpose of avoiding paying UK tax.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I'm not sure what the scandal is supposed to be about Cameron's father.

There must be hundreds of thousands of hedge funds which are set up in exactly the same way. Many investment funds operated by UK fund managers (including mainstream funds which many people's pensions are invested in) are incorporated in an offshore location for the purpose of avoiding having to pay UK corporation tax on their actitivies, so that they can increase returns to investors.

The hedge funds I worked for were organised with a management company based in London running funds that were incorporated in a tax haven.

The reason for this had nothing to do with tax avoidance or evasion: for example the US Government has a tax form that US investors with money outside the US are meant to have sent to the IRS which we used to send accurately and on time. The reason was that when you have investors from a number of countries it is far easier to incorporate the fund in a place which doesn't charge you income or capital gains tax on the fund and then let investors sort out their own tax affairs.

I have no doubt that some didn't but I do know that many did report properly to the IRS, at least they did the investment in our fund, I can't speak for the rest of their tax affairs.

I think the fundamental problem that this all stems from is that we have a rich elite that feel that they just aren't the same as the rest of us. They don't use state schools, hospitals and welfare systems and simply don't see why they should pay into a system that they and their families are highly unlikely ever to use.

Interesting response to all this from Mr Corbyn: bring back the Empire! That'll show Johnny Foreigner what's what eh, eh!

Moby

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I'm not sure what the scandal is supposed to be about Cameron's father.

There must be hundreds of thousands of hedge funds which are set up in exactly the same way. Many investment funds operated by UK fund managers (including mainstream funds which many people's pensions are invested in) are incorporated in an offshore location for the purpose of avoiding having to pay UK corporation tax on their actitivies, so that they can increase returns to investors.

The structure is accepted by governments around the world and everyone knows about it, it isn't some big secret.
None of these funds pay UK corporation tax because SHOCK HORROR they are not UK companies and they do not operate in the UK. If there is a UK based maangement company, it will pay UK corporation tax on its profits.

The tax havens where these funds operate from usually require the company to have locally resident directors which is effectively a form of protectionism to ensure local employment.

Anyone in the UK who has a pension plan that is managed on their behalf probably has at least some of their money invested in a similar structure.

Any income that a UK resident (for tax purposes) receives from a holding in an offshore fund is liable to UK tax, as are any capital gains that investor makes when disposing of the holding.

Successive governments have had the option of banning access for UK investors to such vehicles if they wanted to, or charging withholding tax on outgoing investments etc, but they have chosen not to.

So a question for you Moby, if this is all so bad, why did the Labour governments between 1997-2010 preside over a significant expansion of the hedge fund industry operating from London, employing exactly the same tax structures?

Has the Labour Party received any donations from hedge funds organised in this way at all? Will it be returning those donations after Corbyn's comments today, or will it be keeping them because it cannot physically afford to pay them back? Do you think it is ok for Labour to attack Cameron on the basis that it is currently doing despite Labour having itself been part funded by hedge fund donors who exploit the same arrangements? Or is tax avoidance legitimate as long as it funds champagne socialism.

I think you mistakenly believe I speak on behalf of the Labour Party on such matters! In any event I strongly believe Gordon Brown failed to regulate the Financial Services industry sufficiently before the crash. If such strutures are accepted by Governments around the world as you say......THAT'S WRONG and they should be exposed and things change don't they. Slavery was regarded as acceptable 300 years ago! Fact is both parties have been far too close to the City leeches. A plague on whoever does this type of thing regardless of party affiliation! Current events are exposing the hypocrisy of politicians generally; So many have been bought by the money men! and it is refreshing to expose it. I do know this as well............ I pay my tax before I even see my salary! No need for complicated financial instruments, off shore accounts, the advice of a dodgy accountant, advice from a 'financial adviser' type etc!

The bottom line is that I take a view on such things.......... Who is in deeper; who will the exposure of such activities hurt most? My guess is the tories are more tainted...because of what motivates their ideals.......we'll see;) drip drip drip!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/05/what-david-cameron-did-and-didnt-say-about-his-fathers-offshore-trust


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/panama-papers-the-truth-about-the-blairmore-fund-by-the-man-who-exposed-it-a6970501.html

Cameron won't have benefited from the fund previously or currently as any benefit would be too easy to trace & see but even more to the point, had he benefited previously the HMRC would have been fully aware of this 'asset' in waiting. Its blatantly obvious that (a) Camerons family wanted to keep this asset out of the limelight by not touching it and using other names on the papers and (b) at some point in the future they would try and finagle a method to profit from this fund without any tax liabilities (legally or otherwise).

Its not what Cameron said, its what he didn't say that matters. No mention at all about potential future benefits and if that was the case, why have a fund like this at all? He is a liar and has never been a worthy Prime Minister!

I notice Boris and Ossy are both quiet.....wonder why? Osborne already is panicky about his family business who have been somewhat criticised for their tax positions and Boris has abandoned his US citizenship due to incredible demands from the IRS due to the enormous earnings made whilst Mayor of London.......... which opens a whole cannery of worms as to whether Boris has been on the take as well.:rotfl:

Moby

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

2 wrongs don't make a right.... pretty basic. I would also argue that there is a considerable difference between paying into a pension which (unknowingly) may avoid paying uk tax and specifically structuring a business and hiding behind bearer shares purposefully and implicitly for the purpose of avoiding paying UK tax.

Totally right and the failure to acknowledge the difference is telling in itself isn't it!;)

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

Singapore has low taxation and is arguably about as successful an economy one could find with no mass chavvy benefits culture.


I was amazed how the place looks now, to the extent I am staying there a couple of days as part of my summer holls.

That's because like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi etc it profits enormously from its migrant workers.....but so long as they keep the streets clean for johnny foreigner
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/apr/21/singapore-address-treatment-migrant-workers

wotsthat

So far I've been a bit underwhelmed with the names released. It's not much of a surprise that Assad's cousin was trying to hide money.

Where are the Trumps, Osbormes, and Johnsons? We were promised celebrities too.

Typical media headlines drawing me in.

chewmylegoff

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

2 wrongs don't make a right.... pretty basic. I would also argue that there is a considerable difference between paying into a pension which (unkowingly) may avoid paying uk tax and specifically structuring a business and hiding behind bearer shares purposefully and implicitly for the purpose of avoiding paying UK tax.

I agree that two wrongs don't make a right. What is the wrong though? It isn't structuring a business and hiding it behind bearer shares, as that isn't what is being alleged.

What UK taxes have been avoided? Should investment funds with clients from different countries pay corporation tax in every country in the world? Should investment in overseas companies be banned? Should we ban foreigners from investing in UK companies?