Major EU governments shamed into crackdown on tax evasion

Whatever your comment was supposed to mean, is anyone's idea. Perhaps it was intended to not really mean anything at all.

I absolutely stand by my comments.
I can be critical of those exploiting a possible/potential political opportunity to attack a personality when in reality, there is no substance in the political criticisms.
I can object to and argue against the criticisms against DC, and the criticisms against NS and KL. IMO, there were similarities in that they were baseless politically motivated ad hominem attacks.
It has no other meaning than, IMO, those criticisms were inappropriate and incorrect.
It does not mean that I support them or their political opponents.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Very good points here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36243862

Dr Chang said: "These tax havens basically allow companies and certain individuals to free-ride on the rest of humanity.

"These companies and people make money in one country by using workers educated with public money, using roads, ports and other infrastructure paid for by the taxpayers of that country and moving the money to another country in a shell company which doesn't really do any business there."


For example, the tax-dodging proprietor of the Daily Mail, Lord Rothermere, is a sponging parasite. Born and educated here, running a business here, owning a mansion here, but is not a taxpayer.
 
There's always an alternative view:
However, James Quarmby, a tax lawyer at the international law firm Stephenson Harwood, argued that offshore financial centres play an important role in international finance and trade.

"The Panama papers had a number of people who used that jurisdiction for criminal purposes," he said. "But you can't just argue for shutting down of finance centres because some criminals use them."

Mr Quarmby added: "There's more money laundering going on in New York, Frankfurt and London than any of the finance centres and I don't hear Mr Sachs arguing for those jurisdictions to be shut down."

If a country offers lower taxes, for whatever reason, you can hardly blame companies and individuals for changing their country of residence, if it's allowed.
If a country laws allow more secretive banking facilities, you can hardly blame individuals for using them. It's what Switzerland has been , in part, famous for.
I fully agree with the sentiment of people paying their due taxes, but if the law allows for people to avoid, or lessen their tax burden, no-one can blame them. Maybe most of us can't afford the more expensive methods of avoiding or reducing tax paid, but we all do it, as much as we can.
 
Switzerland had to drop its traditional secrecy after some information was leaked out, and they were threatened with losing business from the countries where they were aiding and abetting criminals.

For example USA
http://www.tsr.ch/info/suisse/2117635-le-national-finit-par-accepter-l-accord-ubs.html

And the EU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Switzerland#European_Union

Many people were stunned to find out, fifty years after the event, that after WW2, Swiss secrecy laws enabled the banks to retain assets deposited with them by war criminals and by people who were later exterminated by Nazism, and to refuse to co-operate with their dependents and heirs. A guard who witnessed evidence-shredding was threatened with prison when he spoke out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Jewish_Congress_lawsuit_against_Swiss_banks
Many records were destroyed by the Swiss Banks and others. It is sometimes denied that this was deliberate.
 
Sponsored Links
Let me put my point carefully. I think that people should pay their due taxes. But you can't blame people for exploiting whatever methods exist to reduce their personal tax burden. We all do it. Some are considered perfectly legal and ethical, some are legal but considered immoral, some are illegal by UK standards, some are illegal by international standards.

I think that a degree of data withholding ought to be practised by, especially, banks. The first link that you referred to was about tax evasion in USA, so it was criminal in the true sense of the word. But it was in no way, about master criminals, etc, laundering money.
The second link referred to Swiss banks levying a retention tax on savings accounts to account for taxation not paid in whichever country it was due. Exactly how that was paid to whichever country, it doesn't explain. So the Swiss banks side-stepped the issue of data release, within the EU.

But as you rightly point out, there is a limit when organisations such as banks ought to disclose the information that they hold. But those cases must be treated on a case-by-case basis, not a free for all. And, certain countries, where certain freedoms are suspect, ought not to have that automatic right to data.
So not only should the data release be treated on a case-by-case basis, but also the requesting organisation/country should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

I also fully support the sharing of data between EU countries to reduce the tax evasion. But tax avoidance will always be fair game. It's not illegal. I agree that it varies in its ethical or moral status.
 
link 2 also says:

"Swiss law distinguishes between tax evasion (non-reporting of income) and tax fraud (active deception). International legal assistance used to be granted only with respect to tax fraud. Under pressure from the OECD and the G20, the Swiss government decided in March 2009 to abolish the distinction between tax evasion and tax fraud in dealings with foreign clients. Switzerland adheres to the international OECD standards with regard to administrative assistance in tax matters (decision to take over the OECD Model Tax Convention, in particular Article 26"

The article has been delicately edited and says "Switzerland did not want to be seen as an obstacle to closer tax cooperation among EU-member states and decided to support the international efforts" rather than "Switzerland fought to avoid it, but was eventually forced by threats of losing trade to comply with EU rules"
 
All they have to do is change the wording of the tax rules to:

"If you get paid over x millions per annum then you only have to pay 3% tax"

Much simpler and you'd save a lot of consultancy and legal fees to boot.
 
link 2 also says:

"Swiss law distinguishes between tax evasion (non-reporting of income) and tax fraud (active deception). International legal assistance used to be granted only with respect to tax fraud. Under pressure from the OECD and the G20, the Swiss government decided in March 2009 to abolish the distinction between tax evasion and tax fraud in dealings with foreign clients. Switzerland adheres to the international OECD standards with regard to administrative assistance in tax matters (decision to take over the OECD Model Tax Convention, in particular Article 26"

The article has been delicately edited and says "Switzerland did not want to be seen as an obstacle to closer tax cooperation among EU-member states and decided to support the international efforts" rather than "Switzerland fought to avoid it, but was eventually forced by threats of losing trade to comply with EU rules"
Well quite. To any reasonable individual there ain't no difference between tax evasion and tax fraud. So, fair play to the Swiss for coming into line.

A lot of articles are delicately worded. Nothing new there.
 
Not morally acceptable, says Oily Dave

So far, it seems that Cameron has not apologised to Carr.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/timeline-david-camerons-scathing-attacks-7711966
Quite, they may be not ethically acceptable, but they're not illegal.........until the law changes.
Should DC apologise? I don't know and I don't care that much. I'm not going to make political capital out of it. IMO, JC could have continued with his aggressive tax avoidance and no-one could do anything......until the law changes. Maybe DC ought to put less energy into moral blackmail and more energy into attention to tax regulations, individual and company.

Similarly, that link carries the leader about DC and SC's shares.
There's noting ethically wrong with selling shares (or anything that might incur CG tax) before the CG tax limit is incurred. Bearing in mind these shares were only worth £10k when they bought them.
We all do similar things, without criticism. It's common sense. Actually, if the PM hadn't acted so, it would have been a poor show for someone who is leading the country to not be aware of the legal situation and make the most of it.
 
until the law changes.
And this thread points out that publicising the scandal has forced major EU governments to hear the shouts of their tax-paying citizens. I have a feeling that spies from one or more or the world's leading Intelligence Agencies has been tasked with burrowing out these secrets so they can be exposed when opportune. It is probably not Mossad or SVR.

Tightening up needs to be done at an international and at a European level. Otherwise the small country seeking an advantage for itself by offering an easy ride will always undermine attempts to close these loopholes.

The EU is capable of doing it, and, as with Switzerland, can apply strong encouragement to other countries not to facilitate lawbreaking by countries operating within its borders. It is likely that some of the non-EU islands sharing the same Queen as the UK may also have to give up their tax-haven trade with, at least, the UK and other EU countries.

It is said that nobody wants to get on the wrong side of Panama because it controls an important trade route. So only a united front will work. Then it will only be handling Mr. Putin's under-the-table transactions.

Equally, the UK government does not want to get on the wrong side of the ultra-Conservative Daily Mail by withdrawing privileges from the notorious tax-dodging Lord Rothermere, but tightening up at a European level would do it.
 
If a country offers lower taxes, for whatever reason, you can hardly blame companies and individuals for changing their country of residence, if it's allowed.
you can't blame people for exploiting whatever methods exist to reduce their personal tax burden.
No, and you cant blame the poor old factory worker for spitting his tea out when he hears old Cameroon giving rousing speeches on the morals of tax avoidance either.

Ordinary PAYE tax payers are not in such privileged position to exploit such devious methods. It is the fact that only a small percentage of wealthy individuals that have access to the knowledge and expensive accountancy practices, allowing them to further increase their wealth that stinks. Whilst the pi$$ poor grunts continue pay the full wack on their income. You would need to be blind not to see the irony Himmy.

I hate politics and it makes me feel sick.
 
Last edited:
until the law changes.
And this thread points out that publicising the scandal has forced major EU governments to hear the shouts of their tax-paying citizens. I have a feeling that spies from one or more or the world's leading Intelligence Agencies has been tasked with burrowing out these secrets so they can be exposed when opportune. It is probably not Mossad or SVR.
Tax inspectors?

Tightening up needs to be done at an international and at a European level. Otherwise the small country seeking an advantage for itself by offering an easy ride will always undermine attempts to close these loopholes.
I don't disagree. However, while these tax havens exist, and are used legally, there's not much point in moaning about people using them.

The EU is capable of doing it, and, as with Switzerland, can apply strong encouragement to other countries not to facilitate lawbreaking by countries operating within its borders. It is likely that some of the non-EU islands sharing the same Queen as the UK may also have to give up their tax-haven trade with, at least, the UK and other EU countries.
Agreed but the UK, for decades has done naff all about it. It's only now that (to use noseall's terminology) pi$$ poor grunts kicking up a stink that UK politicians are waking up and trying to bring pressure to bear. Although, not with any great deal of enthusiasm. Kicking and screaming night be a useful phrase.

It is said that nobody wants to get on the wrong side of Panama because it controls an important trade route. So only a united front will work. Then it will only be handling Mr. Putin's under-the-table transactions.
There is and will be a need, and they will serve a useful function, for off-shore accounts.

Equally, the UK government does not want to get on the wrong side of the ultra-Conservative Daily Mail by withdrawing privileges from the notorious tax-dodging Lord Rothermere, but tightening up at a European level would do it.
It won't necessarily deal with other non-EU tax havens.
 
If a country offers lower taxes, for whatever reason, you can hardly blame companies and individuals for changing their country of residence, if it's allowed.
you can't blame people for exploiting whatever methods exist to reduce their personal tax burden.
No, and you cant blame the poor old factory worker for spitting his tea out when he hears old Cameroon giving rousing speeches on the morals of tax avoidance either.
If they're spitting their tea out, then it's because they think he's being hypocritical. That's an assumption they've made, aided and abetted by journalists and other politicians, who have a political axe to grind.

Ordinary PAYE tax payers are not in such privileged position to exploit such devious methods. It is the fact that only a small percentage of wealthy individuals that have access to the knowledge and expensive accountancy practices, allowing them to further increase their wealth that stinks. Whilst the pi$$ poor grunts continue pay the full wack on their income. You would need to be blind not to see the irony Himmy.
I don't disagree, but as I said to John, if it's legal, and you can afford it, you can't blame people for using those methods.
It's like blaming rich people for being able to use the expensive lawyers, whereas others are reliant on legal aid. Or people going private while others have to accept Local Authority education. Private Health Care V NHS, etc.
If one can afford it, and one can see the costs V benefits pay dividends, why complain, especially if it's legal.
Envy is understandable. But if you're not careful then you're on the road to pure socialism.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Karl Marx.
 
"Sell all you have and give the money to the poor"

Jesus Christ
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top