[News] What SECRETS do the PARADISE Papers hold ?

[Chicken Run]

Playing devil's advocate here, where would we stand if it was revealed that, say, Tony Bloom, or other members of the Albion board had offshored a load of money in this way?

This is not an accusation, by the way: merely a "what if?" scenario

I would imagine many of the bedwetters in here will keel over.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As Corbyn goes big on the Paradise Papers, it’s worth nothing that Labour rent their London headquarters from a tax exempt property unit trust fund based offshore in Jersey. Labour are thought to pay nearly a million pounds a year to lease the eighth floor of the Southside development on Victoria Street. The building is owned by WELPUT (The West End of London Property Unit Trust) – an investment trust established in Jersey, and managed by Schroder Property Managers (Jersey) Limited.

Jersey Property Unit Trusts of this nature have a number of tax features that make them attractive – the rent Labour pays goes to Jersey. What did Corbyn say about people who send money offshore?

As a 'lefty' of sorts I am, perhaps surprisingly, not surprised by this. Although momentum appear to be well organized and thorough, I have a sense that Corbyn himself and his 'team' are all a bit careless when it coms to knowing WTF is actually going on. I seem to recall the co-op bank, so favoured by members of the labour party, being allowed to be run by some grasping incompetant drug-abusing fat clown a few yars ago, naively trusted to do the right thing by those employing him, according to the principle of the circle of virtue ('we employed him, we are nice, so he must be nice too').

Blair and Brown allowed tax fiddling because they (Blair especially) knew the dangers of going to war with the power and money elites. Corbyn has no such cause for reflection or caution, being red in tooth and claw, but ploughing in on this topic without checking his own party's antecedents is typically careless and naive. We can all understand a bit of virtue signalling, but make sure you actually have the virtue first, Jezza, FFS.

BTW - the OP (enrest) - I have asked before - is he FG or not? FG was a troll, and I wonder whether the strident and foolishly blinkered and partizan pro-labour postings of the OP might not actually be more trolling - set yourself up as a comedy silly-arse blinkered socialist and then watch naive labour supporters attempting to offer agreement while anti labour folk mock and laugh

 

[Weststander]

Playing devil's advocate here, where would we stand if it was revealed that, say, Tony Bloom, or other members of the Albion board had offshored a load of money in this way?

This is not an accusation, by the way: merely a "what if?" scenario

95% would excuse it, saying (rightly) that isn't illegal and is "astute".

Many of the 95% would condemn identical behaviour to that by; the royals, celebs, politicians and business people.

It was Steve Parrish, he would be summarily charged, tried, convicted and sentenced.

 

[clapham_gull]

Drawing parallels with what the local builder gets up to as opposed to the super rich are hugely simplistic.

The HMRC (for instance) didn't have a strategy of getting friendly with the local builder or acting (allegedly) as "tax advisors".

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/01/hmrc-too-cosy-super-rich-says-pac

 

[beorhthelm]

What I don't get is why don't the major nations get together and say all tax havens are pariah states. No dealings with them. No financial institution is allowed to deal with them. Close them down completely. The developed world is struggling to raise tax revenues so is screwing the middle/working classes. The benefit to the governments from tax rates of 40% -> 50% is marginal.

because that would mean denying those countries sovereignty. each country has the right to set its own taxes and some chose to have low or no corporate taxation. Its not the place of democratic nations to tell other democratic nations their choices are wrong, so they have to sit a fume about it. there are some moves afoot to impose standard international tax, but no one can agree, not least because everyone thinks they'll lose out in some way (which they probably will).

 

[Sorrel]

I find the whole thing a rather worthless game of pointing angrily at people with money. If you don't agree with what people do with their money then campaign for the law to be changed to prevent them doing what you don't want them to do.

But while I get people want change, I'm less clear exactly what law they want changed and in what way. Without capital controls anyone can take their money out of the country and do whatever they want with it.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Thank goodness we're leaving The EU in 2019 and conveniently avoiding this directive being implemented - https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custo...dance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en

Of course wanting to avoid this directive has nothing to do with these lovely right-wing thoroughly good eggs, such as the old Etonian Rees-Mogg, it never crossed their minds, they're getting their country back and leave means leave and 'a swift, clean exit from the EU' - http://www.leavemeansleave.eu/who-we-are/

#wereallinittogether

 

[Weststander]

Drawing parallels with what the local builder gets up to as opposed to the super rich are hugely simplistic.

The HMRC (for instance) didn't have a strategy of getting friendly with the local builder or acting (allegedly) as "tax advisors".

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/01/hmrc-too-cosy-super-rich-says-pac

The friendly local tax fraudster. Why should he contribute to the funding of schools, police, NHS, roads?

 

[Bozza]

The friendly local tax fraudster. Why should he contribute to the funding of schools, police, NHS, roads?

Indeed.

And when your friendly local tradesman offers to give you a better price "for cash in hand", most folk will think "result - I get to pay less!" and happily oblige.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Playing devil's advocate here, where would we stand if it was revealed that, say, Tony Bloom, or other members of the Albion board had offshored a load of money in this way?

This is not an accusation, by the way: merely a "what if?" scenario

Does anyone think TB hasn't done this?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[larus]

because that would mean denying those countries sovereignty. each country has the right to set its own taxes and some chose to have low or no corporate taxation. Its not the place of democratic nations to tell other democratic nations their choices are wrong, so they have to sit a fume about it. there are some moves afoot to impose standard international tax, but no one can agree, not least because everyone thinks they'll lose out in some way (which they probably will).

It’s the abuse though. For example, when Juncker was Prime Minister of Luxembourg, he agreed tax deals with some large multi-nationals which resulted in these companies setting up head-offices there and then making ‘management charges’ to the companies actual operational businesses in say UK, France, Germany etc. which results in the profits being diverted to a low tax regime and avoiding paying tax in the country where the profits were really generated.

This is what is morally wrong.

And then ********s like Ashcroft abusing the system (allegedly) to avoid paying tax.

THe taxation should be paid in the country where the activity had taken place. I understand that royalties etc. are justified, but the activities of many companies is tax evasion IMO. There’s a difference between tax efficiency and what is currently happening.

 

[beorhthelm]

Does anyone think TB hasn't done this?

his finanaces are unknown, he's is/was based in Australia, supposedly has/had large property holdings and business dealings in asia... what do you think? i mean even if he hasnt done anything to purposedfully avoid tax, some assets will have by definition been offshore (not where he's domiciled).

 

[Perfidious Albion]

I have to say that I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on around this. We see journalists, not the most moral profession, jumpimg up in righteous indignation. I ask you who among us would not be pleased if the employer came up with a way to pay salaries that was tax-beneficial whilst being perfectly legal.

Would you say' No thanks, I like to pay more money to the tax man' ... I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Sorrel]

Does anyone think TB hasn't done this?

He'd surely be a bit of a fool if he hadn't taken legal measures to minimise tax - both for himself, and for the football club. And I don't think he's anyone's fool.

 

[clapham_gull]

Indeed.

And when your friendly local tradesman offers to give you a better price "for cash in hand", most folk will think "result - I get to pay less!" and happily oblige.

Yes but they are seemingly being treated very differently and the differentials in the sums involved are huge.


The counter argument appears to equate stealing a packet of crisps from a corner shop or robbing a bank.

There also hasn't been a huge multi-national industry developed for stealing crisps.

It's the secrecy involved, the breaking of rules and the somewhat cozy relationship with the powers that be that has let them get away with it.




Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk

 

[Bozza]

Yes but they are seemingly being treated very differently and the differentials in the sums involved are huge.

The counter argument appears to equate stealing a packet of crisps from a corner shop or robbing a bank.

There also hasn't been a huge multi-national industry developed for stealing crisps.




Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk

Maybe. I’ve no real idea.

My comments are more targeted at the hypocrisy that often surrounds tax. As others have said, there are very few people who, if presented with a “tax efficiency” would not take it.

 

[Weststander]

It’s the abuse though. For example, when Juncker was Prime Minister of Luxembourg, he agreed tax deals with some large multi-nationals which resulted in these companies setting up head-offices there and then making ‘management charges’ to the companies actual operational businesses in say UK, France, Germany etc. which results in the profits being diverted to a low tax regime and avoiding paying tax in the country where the profits were really generated.

This is what is morally wrong.

And then ********s like Ashcroft abusing the system (allegedly) to avoid paying tax.

THe taxation should be paid in the country where the activity had taken place. I understand that royalties etc. are justified, but the activities of many companies is tax evasion IMO. There’s a difference between tax efficiency and what is currently happening.

Luxembourg, Ireland and Netherlands all thrive on this. Jobs and tax receipts from multinationals setting up real or not so real European HQ's there, offering next to no corporation tax rates. These holding companies then charging hyper inflated 'licensing fees' to their UK, German, French, Italian subsidiaries, to wipe out corp tax liabilities in those countries.

All developed contries need to truly work on this together, by sidelining self interests.

If not, perhaps an independent UK could replace CT for multinationals with a straight forward tax on UK turnover?

 

[beorhthelm]

THe taxation should be paid in the country where the activity had taken place.

the question arises, where does the activity take place? more specifically, where was the economic value created? was it where sold, where manufactured, where designed? thats difficult to answer for a physical object, make it virtual product and its compounded. the rules are designed to try and work with the former scenario and attempts to adpat to the latter break the old model. you make something, invest in production, design, then another country where the product is sold gets the tax on the profits? no one wants to sign up to that.

as for Ashcroft, his tax affairs arent really the problem, its that he's even been involved in British politics when he's chosen to be Belizian. but political parties will let allsorts in if they say the right things or write a cheque.

 

[maltaseagull]

Looks like even the Queen is creative with her tax affairs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41876942

I can see her with her lap top checking rates and loopholes

 

[maltaseagull]

Maybe. I’ve no real idea.

My comments are more targeted at the hypocrisy that often surrounds tax. As others have said, there are very few people who, if presented with a “tax efficiency” would not take it.

No way!
All the caring socialists would gladly pay more tax to help those less fortunate.