politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Forget Paul Ryan, it’s Cruz or bust for the NeverTrump camp

SystemSystem Posts: 12,267
edited April 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Forget Paul Ryan, it’s Cruz or bust for the NeverTrump campaign

It’s fair to say that Wisconsin occupies something of an odd place on the GOP primary calendar in 2016. If it feels like a long time since Republican voters have been to the polls that’s because it has been. By the time that Wisconsin votes this week, it will have been two weeks since Arizona and Utah and we will also have to wait two more weeks for the New York primary on April 19th.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    First ..... again!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    edited April 2016
    FPT
    I was just wondering yesterday whether Corbyn or Cameron was the luckiest politician alive. It seems to swing like a pendulum........Under any normal circumstances both wouldn't have survived. Cameron has lost his party but thanks to Corbyn is wearing an asbestos suit. Corbyn has a minute amount of support outside of his clique but it doesn't show because he's facing a disintegrating Tory Party.

    Now there is this......... The Panama story which has given Corbyn an opening the size of the Grand Canyon.


    Tax evasion/avoidance by extremely rich people is one of the few things that unites both left and right rich and poor.

    That Cameron's father has been involved just adds to the uncomfortable sense of privilege that has been like a ticking time bomb under his administration since it took over in 2010. (They're saying he hasn't paid tax in 30 years)



    So advantage Corbyn
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    FPT

    "No innocent person sites their money in Panama"

    So says barrister specialising in financial affairs on the BBC. I suspect we are looking at a very big story here.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Roger said:

    FPT

    "No innocent person sites their money in Panama"

    So says barrister specialising in financial affairs on the BBC. I suspect we are looking at a very big story here.

    You can dream, but it's all a bit meh so far.

    Given that hundreds of journalists around the world are involved in researching this story, I just don't buy that British journalists would be holding back on the juicy bits for reasons of timing, all the while having to trust their competitors not to scoop them. It seems more likely that the big news would be on the front page on day one such as it is.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Knowing absolutely nothing about Paul Ryan, I watched the brief video clip of him speaking on the previous thread and was very underwhelmed. I would be astonished were he to progress to any extent in this contest.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Roger said:

    FTax evasion/avoidance by extremely rich people is one of the few things that unites both left and right rich and poor.

    That Cameron's father has been involved just adds to the uncomfortable sense of privilege that has been like a ticking time bomb under his administration since it took over in 2010. (They're saying he hasn't paid tax in 30 years)

    So advantage Corbyn

    "Prime ministers father used some legal tax avoidance vehicles before the PM was born, and for which the is no evidence the PM profits from or indeed has any connection to"

    If that's your election winner, the left are more desperate than I thought.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    edited April 2016
    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    FPT

    "No innocent person sites their money in Panama"

    So says barrister specialising in financial affairs on the BBC. I suspect we are looking at a very big story here.

    You can dream, but it's all a bit meh so far.

    Given that hundreds of journalists around the world are involved in researching this story, I just don't buy that British journalists would be holding back on the juicy bits for reasons of timing, all the while having to trust their competitors not to scoop them. It seems more likely that the big news would be on the front page on day one such as it is.
    It's headlines of nearly all the newspapes and it's leading all the news stories. It's not like there's no other news around. It strikes me we're facing a new witch hunt now that the celeb paedophile squall has died down.

    As for my dreams ...I loathe these McCarthyite stories. I've never liked hunting prey
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    peter_from_putney said:

    Knowing absolutely nothing about Paul Ryan, I watched the brief video clip of him speaking on the previous thread and was very underwhelmed. I would be astonished were he to progress to any extent in this contest.

    If you check his Wikipedia profile he appears to be cursed with one of the least convincing smiles that I have ever seen on a politician!
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    FPT

    "No innocent person sites their money in Panama"

    So says barrister specialising in financial affairs on the BBC. I suspect we are looking at a very big story here.

    You can dream, but it's all a bit meh so far.

    Given that hundreds of journalists around the world are involved in researching this story, I just don't buy that British journalists would be holding back on the juicy bits for reasons of timing, all the while having to trust their competitors not to scoop them. It seems more likely that the big news would be on the front page on day one such as it is.
    Which of these do you buy, Indy?

    "Taxation is theft"

    "Tax avoidance is a sign of intelligence"

  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Interesting and you really think this is a non story?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection Countdown :

    8,888 seconds
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,790
    Roger said:

    FPT
    I was just wondering yesterday whether Corbyn or Cameron was the luckiest politician alive. It seems to swing like a pendulum........Under any normal circumstances both wouldn't have survived. Cameron has lost his party but thanks to Corbyn is wearing an asbestos suit. Corbyn has a minute amount of support outside of his clique but it doesn't show because he's facing a disintegrating Tory Party.

    Now there is this......... The Panama story which has given Corbyn an opening the size of the Grand Canyon.


    Tax evasion/avoidance by extremely rich people is one of the few things that unites both left and right rich and poor.

    That Cameron's father has been involved just adds to the uncomfortable sense of privilege that has been like a ticking time bomb under his administration since it took over in 2010. (They're saying he hasn't paid tax in 30 years)



    So advantage Corbyn

    Cameron is not the issue. The issue is this need by fabulously rich people and corporations to hide away money they can never hope to spend so that it cannot be redistributed to those who might benefit from it. In the end the greed of the very rich will bring them down.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2016
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    FPT

    "No innocent person sites their money in Panama"

    So says barrister specialising in financial affairs on the BBC. I suspect we are looking at a very big story here.

    You can dream, but it's all a bit meh so far.

    Given that hundreds of journalists around the world are involved in researching this story, I just don't buy that British journalists would be holding back on the juicy bits for reasons of timing, all the while having to trust their competitors not to scoop them. It seems more likely that the big news would be on the front page on day one such as it is.
    Which of these do you buy, Indy?

    "Taxation is theft"

    "Tax avoidance is a sign of intelligence"

    Neither.

    Parliament makes laws to collect tax. People are legally and morally obliged to pay the tax parliament enacts. They are not obliged to pay more than required. If parliament makes things so bloody complicated and opaque that there are grey areas and endless allowances and exceptions, whose fault is that? Personally I am in favour of a massive simplification of the tax code, ideally down to one slim volume which everyone should pay. In taxation as in other areas of law it ill becomes parliament to both pass sloppy hole ridden laws and bitch about people using those holes.

    Wasn't it Lord Denning that said that a man is not required to arrange his affairs in such a way as to remit the maximum possible tax to the state.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Is Indigo (or any other Peebie) a Mossack Fonseca client?

    I'm not.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection Countdown :

    8,888 seconds

    I said it wasn't fit for purpose. It was holed.

    How wrong I was
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,262
    SouthamObserver said:

    Roger said:

    FPT
    I was just wondering yesterday whether Corbyn or Cameron was the luckiest politician alive. It seems to swing like a pendulum........Under any normal circumstances both wouldn't have survived. Cameron has lost his party but thanks to Corbyn is wearing an asbestos suit. Corbyn has a minute amount of support outside of his clique but it doesn't show because he's facing a disintegrating Tory Party.

    Now there is this......... The Panama story which has given Corbyn an opening the size of the Grand Canyon.


    Tax evasion/avoidance by extremely rich people is one of the few things that unites both left and right rich and poor.

    That Cameron's father has been involved just adds to the uncomfortable sense of privilege that has been like a ticking time bomb under his administration since it took over in 2010. (They're saying he hasn't paid tax in 30 years)



    So advantage Corbyn

    Cameron is not the issue. The issue is this need by fabulously rich people and corporations to hide away money they can never hope to spend so that it cannot be redistributed to those who might benefit from it. In the end the greed of the very rich will bring them down.

    I think we're all sickened by the selfish and greedy behaviour of a good chunk of the super rich.

    From a centre-right perspective, it means a far heavier tax burden on middle earners as well.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Roger said:

    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection Countdown :

    8,888 seconds

    I said it wasn't fit for purpose. It was holed.

    How wrong I was
    Indeed Roger.

    You tried to rear end my ARSE and found your efforts lacked bottom.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,790
    Roger said:

    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Interesting and you really think this is a non story?

    It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2016
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Is Indigo (or any other Peebie) a Mossack Fonseca client?

    I'm not.

    Yes, because teachers in charity schools on the third world that do a little internet consulting on the side to pay the rent are the typical clients of dodgy Panama accountants. I dare say I come close to the lowest nett personal worth on this list. I couldn't afford the dust on their doormat!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,790
    Casino_Royale said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Roger said:

    FPT
    I was just wondering yesterday whether Corbyn or Cameron was the luckiest politician alive. It seems to swing like a pendulum........Under any normal circumstances both wouldn't have survived. Cameron has lost his party but thanks to Corbyn is wearing an asbestos suit. Corbyn has a minute amount of support outside of his clique but it doesn't show because he's facing a disintegrating Tory Party.

    Now there is this......... The Panama story which has given Corbyn an opening the size of the Grand Canyon.


    Tax evasion/avoidance by extremely rich people is one of the few things that unites both left and right rich and poor.

    That Cameron's father has been involved just adds to the uncomfortable sense of privilege that has been like a ticking time bomb under his administration since it took over in 2010. (They're saying he hasn't paid tax in 30 years)



    So advantage Corbyn

    Cameron is not the issue. The issue is this need by fabulously rich people and corporations to hide away money they can never hope to spend so that it cannot be redistributed to those who might benefit from it. In the end the greed of the very rich will bring them down.

    I think we're all sickened by the selfish and greedy behaviour of a good chunk of the super rich.

    From a centre-right perspective, it means a far heavier tax burden on middle earners as well.

    Exactly. And pressure on them, their advisers and the jurisdictions they squirrel their unspendable loot away in is only going to grow. The internet is probably the most powerful and undefeatable enemy they have. Its remorseless shining light is going to lead to more concerted action.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,253
    Indigo said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    FPT

    "No innocent person sites their money in Panama"

    So says barrister specialising in financial affairs on the BBC. I suspect we are looking at a very big story here.

    You can dream, but it's all a bit meh so far.

    Given that hundreds of journalists around the world are involved in researching this story, I just don't buy that British journalists would be holding back on the juicy bits for reasons of timing, all the while having to trust their competitors not to scoop them. It seems more likely that the big news would be on the front page on day one such as it is.
    Which of these do you buy, Indy?

    "Taxation is theft"

    "Tax avoidance is a sign of intelligence"

    Neither.

    Parliament makes laws to collect tax. People are legally and morally obliged to pay the tax parliament enacts. They are not obliged to pay more than required. If parliament makes things so bloody complicated and opaque that there are grey areas and endless allowances and exceptions, whose fault is that? Personally I am in favour of a massive simplification of the tax code, ideally down to one slim volume which everyone should pay. In taxation as in other areas of law it ill becomes parliament to both pass sloppy hole ridden laws and bitch about people using those holes.

    Wasn't it Lord Denning that said that a man is not required to arrange his affairs in such a way as to remit the maximum possible tax to the state.
    Agree - if governments are so stupid as to make things so complicated smart lawyers can drive legal cart & horses through the tax law they have no one to blame but themselves.

    That said, this government has done more than its predecessor - interestingly the peak of the Panama activity was 2005.......and of course if there was any illegality in Cameron Père's activity I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now - just a lot of righteous huffing and puffing and 'something must be done' ing (which is more than we ever did....)
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    SouthamObserver said:

    Roger said:

    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Interesting and you really think this is a non story?

    It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.

    I believe Panama is one of the very few, possibly the only, country in which bearer shares are still legal. Makes is pretty hard tax someone when you don't know who is the shareholder of the company from day to day. Attempts have been made to get the to clear it up before, but it's the only industry in the country that makes significant money and they are not about to cast their population back into the dark ages.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,790
    edited April 2016
    CarlottaVance said:

    Indigo said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    FPT

    "No innocent person sites their money in Panama"

    So says barrister specialising in financial affairs on the BBC. I suspect we are looking at a very big story here.

    You can dream, but it's all a bit meh so far.

    Given that hundreds of journalists around the world are involved in researching this story, I just don't buy that British journalists would be holding back on the juicy bits for reasons of timing, all the while having to trust their competitors not to scoop them. It seems more likely that the big news would be on the front page on day one such as it is.
    Which of these do you buy, Indy?

    "Taxation is theft"

    "Tax avoidance is a sign of intelligence"

    Neither.

    Parliament makes laws to collect tax. People are legally and morally obliged to pay the tax parliament enacts. They are not obliged to pay more than required. If parliament makes things so bloody complicated and opaque that there are grey areas and endless allowances and exceptions, whose fault is that? Personally I am in favour of a massive simplification of the tax code, ideally down to one slim volume which everyone should pay. In taxation as in other areas of law it ill becomes parliament to both pass sloppy hole ridden laws and bitch about people using those holes.

    Wasn't it Lord Denning that said that a man is not required to arrange his affairs in such a way as to remit the maximum possible tax to the state.
    Agree - if governments are so stupid as to make things so complicated smart lawyers can drive legal cart & horses through the tax law they have no one to blame but themselves.

    That said, this government has done more than its predecessor - interestingly the peak of the Panama activity was 2005.......and of course if there was any illegality in Cameron Père's activity I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now - just a lot of righteous huffing and puffing and 'something must be done' ing (which is more than we ever did....)

    edit - deleted. Whoops!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,790
    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Roger said:

    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Interesting and you really think this is a non story?

    It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.

    I believe Panama is one of the very few, possibly the only, country in which bearer shares are still legal. Makes is pretty hard tax someone when you don't know who is the shareholder of the company from day to day. Attempts have been made to get the to clear it up before, but it's the only industry in the country that makes significant money and they are not about to cast their population back into the dark ages.

    Panama may not have a choice.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,999
    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Given the Guardian's lamentable history in keeping information secret (see Wikileaks), expect the the full data to be out in the public soon.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,790
    CarlottaVance said:

    Indigo said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    FPT

    "No innocent person sites their money in Panama"

    So says barrister specialising in financial affairs on the BBC. I suspect we are looking at a very big story here.

    You can dream, but it's all a bit meh so far.

    Given that hundreds of journalists around the world are involved in researching this story, I just don't buy that British journalists would be holding back on the juicy bits for reasons of timing, all the while having to trust their competitors not to scoop them. It seems more likely that the big news would be on the front page on day one such as it is.
    Which of these do you buy, Indy?

    "Taxation is theft"

    "Tax avoidance is a sign of intelligence"

    Neither.

    Parliament makes laws to collect tax. People are legally and morally obliged to pay the tax parliament enacts. They are not obliged to pay more than required. If parliament makes things so bloody complicated and opaque that there are grey areas and endless allowances and exceptions, whose fault is that? Personally I am in favour of a massive simplification of the tax code, ideally down to one slim volume which everyone should pay. In taxation as in other areas of law it ill becomes parliament to both pass sloppy hole ridden laws and bitch about people using those holes.

    Wasn't it Lord Denning that said that a man is not required to arrange his affairs in such a way as to remit the maximum possible tax to the state.
    Agree - if governments are so stupid as to make things so complicated smart lawyers can drive legal cart & horses through the tax law they have no one to blame but themselves.

    That said, this government has done more than its predecessor - interestingly the peak of the Panama activity was 2005.......and of course if there was any illegality in Cameron Père's activity I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now - just a lot of righteous huffing and puffing and 'something must be done' ing (which is more than we ever did....)

    The Crash has changed the game. Labour's record was lamentable, but before 2008 no-one really noticed or cared. Now they do. The Tories have been very strong on rhetoric, but in practical terms not much has been achieved. Cutting staff numbers at HMRC has not helped.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    SouthamObserver said:

    Roger said:

    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Interesting and you really think this is a non story?

    It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.

    SouthamObserver said:

    Roger said:

    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Interesting and you really think this is a non story?

    It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.

    As the BBC's barrister specialising in tax said "No innocent person sites their money in Panama". Quite a striking thing to say for a barrister whom in all other respects sounded cautious. It not only looks like the story will be huge but if you read Indigo's link it'll have legs too

    *I've just heard them re quote him and they've used a sligtly watered down edit
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,942
    Indigo said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Is Indigo (or any other Peebie) a Mossack Fonseca client?

    I'm not.

    Yes, because teachers in charity schools on the third world that do a little internet consulting on the side to pay the rent are the typical clients of dodgy Panama accountants. I dare say I come close to the lowest nett personal worth on this list. I couldn't afford the dust on their doormat!
    Frankly, I'm amazed you can afford to by a teacher at a charity school... Unless it's all part of some incredible tax dodge!
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    SouthamObserver said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Roger said:

    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Interesting and you really think this is a non story?

    It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.

    I believe Panama is one of the very few, possibly the only, country in which bearer shares are still legal. Makes is pretty hard tax someone when you don't know who is the shareholder of the company from day to day. Attempts have been made to get the to clear it up before, but it's the only industry in the country that makes significant money and they are not about to cast their population back into the dark ages.

    Panama may not have a choice.

    Its still pushing water up hill.

    There have been rumours for a while that China is considering making either HK or Macau a tax haven for international clients. Lots of nice liquidity for them. Be interesting to see what people try an do about a tax haven with a superpower backing it. Infact there already is one, Panama is only 13th on the world Bank Secrecy Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Secrecy_Index) The third is the USA, try getting them to tell you about accounts held in the USA by foreigners.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    Indigo said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Is Indigo (or any other Peebie) a Mossack Fonseca client?

    I'm not.

    Yes, because teachers in charity schools on the third world that do a little internet consulting on the side to pay the rent are the typical clients of dodgy Panama accountants. I dare say I come close to the lowest nett personal worth on this list. I couldn't afford the dust on their doormat!
    Frankly, I'm amazed you can afford to by a teacher at a charity school... Unless it's all part of some incredible tax dodge!
    Nope, its just very cheap to live here, I probably spend under £800 most months including my rent. Most of my friends here still feel this is being breathtakingly extravagant ;)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    CarlottaVance said:

    Indigo said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    FPT

    "No innocent person sites their money in Panama"

    So says barrister specialising in financial affairs on the BBC. I suspect we are looking at a very big story here.

    You can dream, but it's all a bit meh so far.

    Given that hundreds of journalists around the world are involved in researching this story, I just don't buy that British journalists would be holding back on the juicy bits for reasons of timing, all the while having to trust their competitors not to scoop them. It seems more likely that the big news would be on the front page on day one such as it is.
    Which of these do you buy, Indy?

    "Taxation is theft"

    "Tax avoidance is a sign of intelligence"

    Neither.

    Parliament makes laws to collect tax. People are legally and morally obliged to pay the tax parliament enacts. They are not obliged to pay more than required. If parliament makes things so bloody complicated and opaque that there are grey areas and endless allowances and exceptions, whose fault is that? Personally I am in favour of a massive simplification of the tax code, ideally down to one slim volume which everyone should pay. In taxation as in other areas of law it ill becomes parliament to both pass sloppy hole ridden laws and bitch about people using those holes.

    Wasn't it Lord Denning that said that a man is not required to arrange his affairs in such a way as to remit the maximum possible tax to the state.
    Agree - if governments are so stupid as to make things so complicated smart lawyers can drive legal cart & horses through the tax law they have no one to blame but themselves.

    That said, this government has done more than its predecessor - interestingly the peak of the Panama activity was 2005.......and of course if there was any illegality in Cameron Père's activity I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now - just a lot of righteous huffing and puffing and 'something must be done' ing (which is more than we ever did....)
    Not quite as simple as that. Apparently people are entitled to keep their tax affairs private which is why hiding assets is so easy. The question is why.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,253
    Pop quiz......which jurisdictions top the compliance list for Financial Action Task Force Standards..... (hint, its not the UK or US....)


    http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21571554-some-onshore-jurisdictions-can-be-laxer-offshore-sort-not-palm-tree-sight
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    Apparently the British Virgin Islands are the worst. As it happens I'm trying to sell a small sea front plot on Anegada and I literally can't give it away.

    Doesn't anyone fancy putting a tent up with a beautiful sea front view and by the sound of it not a taxman in sight?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,253
    JosiasJessop said:

    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Given the Guardian's lamentable history in keeping information secret (see Wikileaks), expect the the full data to be out in the public soon.
    It already is:

    https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/search?country=UK&q=&ppl=on&ent=on&adr=on
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited April 2016
    I still don't care, rich people use tax haven shocker. The Cameron dad story is old and he's been dead seven years already.

    I honestly don't expect much to change. Osborne's done quite a bit on this subject, but that counts for nothing vs the stereotype. Maybe Iceland will get a new PM, hey-ho.

    The best Panama story remains the canoeist.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    CarlottaVance said:

    Pop quiz......which jurisdictions top the compliance list for Financial Action Task Force Standards..... (hint, its not the UK or US....)


    http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21571554-some-onshore-jurisdictions-can-be-laxer-offshore-sort-not-palm-tree-sight

    Indeed. The USA as usual has the cheek of Old Nick, given the number of deniable shell companies formed in Delaware every year. As I commented earlier, the hand wringers are going to be trying to sweep water up hill if they want a crack down on this, its defacto supported by one or more of the superpowers.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited April 2016
    ICYMI

    This did make me laugh, their faces are a picture of disappointment.

    Alex Wickham
    Khan holds a "Sadisqco" party. 8 people turn up. All of them blokes. More like a Sad-disco. https://t.co/a8OsGs35Pa https://t.co/hNVZ7Quzvu
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,262
    I'd like to avoid paying 40% tax on most of my very hard earned money.

    How do I get an offshore account?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,262
    Plato_Says said:

    ICYMI

    This did make me laugh, their faces are a picture of disappointment.

    Alex Wickham
    Khan holds a "Sadisqco" party. 8 people turn up. All of them blokes. More like a Sad-disco. https://t.co/a8OsGs35Pa https://t.co/hNVZ7Quzvu

    Made me laugh so much.

    FWIW, this is normal. When I ran my university Tory association you'd struggle to get anything north of a dozen turning up for a political event, in a university of thousands.

    Conversely, turnout for the Tory v. Labour laser quest was very good.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    Plato_Says said:

    ICYMI

    This did make me laugh, their faces are a picture of disappointment.

    Alex Wickham
    Khan holds a "Sadisqco" party. 8 people turn up. All of them blokes. More like a Sad-disco. https://t.co/a8OsGs35Pa https://t.co/hNVZ7Quzvu

    What was funny?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Plato_Says said:

    ICYMI

    This did make me laugh, their faces are a picture of disappointment.

    Alex Wickham
    Khan holds a "Sadisqco" party. 8 people turn up. All of them blokes. More like a Sad-disco. https://t.co/a8OsGs35Pa https://t.co/hNVZ7Quzvu

    Wow this election really is Dull vs Boring isn't it.....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    Spot on from Kieran. If you are starting De novo buy Cruz over Ryan at today's prices
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,253
    SouthamObserver said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Indigo said:

    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    FPT

    "No innocent person sites their money in Panama"

    So says barrister specialising in financial affairs on the BBC. I suspect we are looking at a very big story here.

    You can dream, but it's all a bit meh so far.

    Given that hundreds of journalists around the world are involved in researching this story, I just don't buy that British journalists would be holding back on the juicy bits for reasons of timing, all the while having to trust their competitors not to scoop them. It seems more likely that the big news would be on the front page on day one such as it is.
    Which of these do you buy, Indy?

    "Taxation is theft"

    "Tax avoidance is a sign of intelligence"

    Neither.

    Parliament makes laws to collect tax. People are legally and morally obliged to pay the tax parliament enacts. They are not obliged to pay more than required. If parliament makes things so bloody complicated and opaque that there are grey areas and endless allowances and exceptions, whose fault is that? Personally I am in favour of a massive simplification of the tax code, ideally down to one slim volume which everyone should pay. In taxation as in other areas of law it ill becomes parliament to both pass sloppy hole ridden laws and bitch about people using those holes.

    Wasn't it Lord Denning that said that a man is not required to arrange his affairs in such a way as to remit the maximum possible tax to the state.
    Agree - if governments are so stupid as to make things so complicated smart lawyers can drive legal cart & horses through the tax law they have no one to blame but themselves.

    That said, this government has done more than its predecessor - interestingly the peak of the Panama activity was 2005.......and of course if there was any illegality in Cameron Père's activity I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now - just a lot of righteous huffing and puffing and 'something must be done' ing (which is more than we ever did....)

    The Tories have been very strong on rhetoric, but in practical terms not much has been achieved.
    Remember how Amazon used to ship DVDs from Jersey?

    Not anymore. Flourished under Labour, shut down (with hundreds of job losses) under the coalition.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    ***** Betting Post *****

    Whatever the outcome of the EU Referendum in June, this whole Panama tax business will inevitably result in shortening David Cameron's tenure of No. 10. Indeed it may well reinforce his own wish and determination to leave the top job sooner rather than later.
    This reminded me to revisit Hills' “When will David Cameron Cease to be Tory Leader” market, where the value bet appears to be 2017 at odds of 8.0 decimal and I've topped up accordingly, together with a small saver on 2016 at odds of 4.5 decimal.
    As ever, DYOR.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    O/T: "Interesting" development in the Land of the Free.

    http://reverbpress.com/religion/soldiers-of-god-bill/
    The state of Mississippi has just passed a law that gives churches and its members as much power as state security forces. The Mississippi Church Protection Act has now legalized all acts of violence, including killing, committed by so-called followers of Christ or soldiers of God. Also known as the Mississippi House Bill 786, the bill seeks;
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    I think Panama will bring down the Iceland PM personally. Everyone expects it of third world tinpot despots - but Gunnlaugson is surely gone soon !
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,999
    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Roger said:

    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Interesting and you really think this is a non story?

    It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.

    I believe Panama is one of the very few, possibly the only, country in which bearer shares are still legal. Makes is pretty hard tax someone when you don't know who is the shareholder of the company from day to day. Attempts have been made to get the to clear it up before, but it's the only industry in the country that makes significant money and they are not about to cast their population back into the dark ages.

    Panama may not have a choice.

    Its still pushing water up hill.

    There have been rumours for a while that China is considering making either HK or Macau a tax haven for international clients. Lots of nice liquidity for them. Be interesting to see what people try an do about a tax haven with a superpower backing it. Infact there already is one, Panama is only 13th on the world Bank Secrecy Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Secrecy_Index) The third is the USA, try getting them to tell you about accounts held in the USA by foreigners.
    Considering the Chinese are neck-deep in the Panama story, that wouldn't be a surprise: they'd have much more control.

    However isn't part of the reason that all these dictators, despots and criminals (*) put their money offshore from their own countries is access? Once it's out of their country it's harder for people in their own country to discover about it, and it's more accessible if the worst comes and they need to flee.

    Now a question: would it be possible for (say) the UK to ask Panama to freeze accounts belonging to terrorists and/or criminals? I'm guessing not.

    (*) Naturally not including Cameron's dad ...
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Leftie liberals deploy their latest wheeze for trying to close down debate on areas they find uncomfortable, and happily come a cropper

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/no-simon-schama-people-worried-about-gang-rape-and-fgm-arent-obsessed-with-sex/
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited April 2016
    http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2016/04/matt-singh-responds-debate-around-polls-apart.html/
    Our argument was not about the outright level of undecided voters, and there’s a good reason for this – it’s only a small subsection that we’re interested in – specifically those that seem to be answering differently depending on how the question is presented.

    John Curtice’s point about squeezing is a concern – it appears that prompting for don’t knows and then squeezing them has a slightly different effect to simply not prompting (as was the procedure in our split test). This is an interesting puzzle, but we think it more likely that adding a third option that is not on the ballot paper – which is essentially an artefact of the self-completing nature of online polls – creates additional uncertainty among a group of voters that seem to lean quite strongly lean one way...
    If you've read any of the articles, worth 2 mins
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    It makes a lot of sense to avoid paying excess tax..only a fool pays more than they should and all legal procedures are exactly that..Legal
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    JosiasJessop said:

    Now a question: would it be possible for (say) the UK to ask Panama to freeze accounts belonging to terrorists and/or criminals? I'm guessing not.

    I am no expert here, but I imagine the problem is going to be one of identification of the relevant accounts as much as anything else. If you have a regime which allows shell companies to be formed without even needing to show any ID (as I beleive is also the case in Delaware), and that company is controlled by the current holders of bearer shares, and I think there is no legal requirement to list directors or hold general meetings, you are going to have a tough time following the money.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited April 2016
    It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax evasion or is it avoidance? Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation though?

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/

    Edit - for avoidance / evasion
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Can we expect to see changes, however modest, in JackW's imminent projection of the June EU Referendum voting and turnout?

    I rather think so ..... if would simply being too boring to repeat last week's numbers precisely.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Morning all.
    Fully agree that governments cause the problem by excessively complicated tax codes.
    The question is, How do you stop a Chancellor/Fin minister tinkering with the tax code?
    GO may have done more than previous CotE to crack down on tax avoidance, but what new opportunities has he created which his brand of tinkering?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Moses_ said:

    It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax avoidance but Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation......

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/

    Its an irregular verb.

    I make efficiency savings
    You avoid tax
    They are prosecuted under the Taxes Management Act 1970
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Moses_ said:

    It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax evasion or is it avoidance? Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation though?

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/

    Oh Dear! Stones and glass houses, etc.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Tax and Panama -- I'm not expecting the Chancellor to send the Fraud Squad next door but has whichever minister is in charge of collecting tax said anything?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    peter_from_putney said:

    Moses_ said:

    It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax evasion or is it avoidance? Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation though?

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/

    Oh Dear! Stones and glass houses, etc.
    Stones, glass houses and -- what is the collective noun for Look, Squirrels?
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    Morning all.
    Fully agree that governments cause the problem by excessively complicated tax codes.
    The question is, How do you stop a Chancellor/Fin minister tinkering with the tax code?
    GO may have done more than previous CotE to crack down on tax avoidance, but what new opportunities has he created which his brand of tinkering?

    Didn't that colossus of the Treasury Brown introduce some 10000 new tax laws or close to?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    If we take the reported numbers protesting as c22k, with a population of only 300k ish - it's quite a percentage.
    Pulpstar said:

    I think Panama will bring down the Iceland PM personally. Everyone expects it of third world tinpot despots - but Gunnlaugson is surely gone soon !

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,735
    I agree and realistically Ryan would not get anywhere near enough delegates defecting from Trump and Cruz to get anywhere near the nomination not to mention he has said he does not want it anyway. Cruz is the only viable alternative but he needs a big win in Wisconsin tonight, even a narrow loss for Trump would not be too bad for him given his recent problems
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Decrepitjohn..Are you suggesting the PM has committed a crime...gosh..what evidence do you have..apart from a smear..
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    "Is there any reason why someone would invest in the tax haven of Panama rather than Jersey or The Isle of Man?"

    "Only for secrecy. It's almost impossible for British tax authorities to investigate"

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,262
    Plato_Says said:

    If we take the reported numbers protesting as c22k, with a population of only 300k ish - it's quite a percentage.

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Panama will bring down the Iceland PM personally. Everyone expects it of third world tinpot despots - but Gunnlaugson is surely gone soon !

    Yup, I think he's toast.

    Shame, as up to now I rather liked him.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Moses_ said:

    It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax evasion or is it avoidance? Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation though?

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/

    Oh Dear! Stones and glass houses, etc.
    Stones, glass houses and -- what is the collective noun for Look, Squirrels?
    LOL
    Ahh.. Tax avoidance by right bad ... Tax avoidance by left " look squirrel" . What's actually the difference between the Guardian and Cameron's Pops? The Guardian refuse to answer the same questions they demand others themselves answer openly .
  • FattyBolgerFattyBolger Posts: 299
    Anecdotage... 4or5 REMAIN campaigners out and about in Ledbury centre on Saturday morning.... Not obviously promising territory for them. From my brief observations while MrsFB was in and out of shops they were getting a distinctly less encouraging reaction than the OUT types the other week. A lot of curt headshakes when leaflets were offered, people movingtothe outside of the pavement and averting their gaze when passing them.... Totally subjective iknow

    Also Mrs FB educated professional generally interested and well informed lady thatshe is has already declared herself heartedly fed up to the back teeth with all this referendum stuff.... Bored to tears by it. It seems excitement maynot be building!, outside this site that is. I forecast a low turnout
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Roger said:

    "Is there any reason why someone would invest in the tax haven of Panama rather than Jersey or The Isle of Man?"

    "Only for secrecy. It's almost impossible for British tax authorities to investigate"

    Yes yes But it's all just smear and innuendo unless there is evidence of a criminal enterprise.

    I feel some Thomas More coming on...

    NORFOLK Then your reasons must be treasonable!
    MORE Not "must be"; may be.
    NORFOLK It's a fair assumption!
    MORE The law requires more than an assumption; the law requires a fact.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    FattyBolger said:

    Anecdotage... 4or5 REMAIN campaigners out and about in Ledbury centre on Saturday morning.... Not obviously promising territory for them. From my brief observations while MrsFB was in and out of shops they were getting a distinctly less encouraging reaction than the OUT types the other week. A lot of curt headshakes when leaflets were offered, people movingtothe outside of the pavement and averting their gaze when passing them.... Totally subjective iknow

    Also Mrs FB educated professional generally interested and well informed lady thatshe is has already declared herself heartedly fed up to the back teeth with all this referendum stuff.... Bored to tears by it. It seems excitement maynot be building!, outside this site that is. I forecast a low turnout

    .... and what would that forecast be Mr. FB?
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Tax and Panama -- I'm not expecting the Chancellor to send the Fraud Squad next door but has whichever minister is in charge of collecting tax said anything?

    What law has "next door" broken or fraudulent activity undertaken requiring the fraud squad?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,080
    Good morning, everyone.

    Nice quote, Mr. Indigo.

    On-topic: good article, Mr. Pedley. I concur that there'd be a democratic (ahem) outcry if someone not even standing won.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    "Is there any reason why someone would invest in the tax haven of Panama rather than Jersey or The Isle of Man?"

    "Only for secrecy. It's almost impossible for British tax authorities to investigate"

    Yes yes But it's all just smear and innuendo unless there is evidence of a criminal enterprise.

    I feel some Thomas More coming on...

    NORFOLK Then your reasons must be treasonable!
    MORE Not "must be"; may be.
    NORFOLK It's a fair assumption!
    MORE The law requires more than an assumption; the law requires a fact.
    “I'll give my jewels for a set of beads,
    My gorgeous palace for a hermitage,
    My gay apparel for an almsman's gown,
    My figured goblets for a dish of wood,
    My scepter for a palmer's walking staff
    My subjects for a pair of carved saints
    and my large kingdom for a little grave.”
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I agree with Keiran Pedley on this.

    Where have the cases about Ted Cruz potentially being ineligible got to?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,178
    The problem with this article is that it assumes the Republicans will literally choose anyone but Trump. However, by all accounts the Republican hierarchy are even more afraid of Cruz as candidate than they are at the thought of Trump being President. Cruz's policy positions make Trump's comments on abortion and mass construction look positively sane. He's not that different from Sarah Palin and he's not nearly as good-looking.

    Therefore, if the votes do fall as Keiran suggests, Trump will surely be the unenthusiastically endorsed nominee in order to stop Cruz.

    The only way I can see Trump being stopped under this scenario is if a late surge from Kasich brings him into play. But he's got a lot to do if he's to manage that.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,312
    I like the picture in the thread header. I should have guessed that it said 'trusted' but my first thought was that it said 'busted'.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Much discussed here recently as regards Scotland's enthusiasm to remain within the EU compared with England. But what about the contrary argument ..... by joining the English in voting to LEAVE, the Scots would thereby place themselves in a position to demand a second Independence Referendum on such a fundamental issue concerning their future.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Roger said:

    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    "Is there any reason why someone would invest in the tax haven of Panama rather than Jersey or The Isle of Man?"

    "Only for secrecy. It's almost impossible for British tax authorities to investigate"

    Yes yes But it's all just smear and innuendo unless there is evidence of a criminal enterprise.

    I feel some Thomas More coming on...

    NORFOLK Then your reasons must be treasonable!
    MORE Not "must be"; may be.
    NORFOLK It's a fair assumption!
    MORE The law requires more than an assumption; the law requires a fact.
    “I'll give my jewels for a set of beads,
    My gorgeous palace for a hermitage,
    My gay apparel for an almsman's gown,
    My figured goblets for a dish of wood,
    My scepter for a palmer's walking staff
    My subjects for a pair of carved saints
    and my large kingdom for a little grave.”
    Are there many hermitages there in the French Riviera ? I havent been there for a decade or so, must have changed a lot ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,178
    On the day the new Star Wars DVD comes out, Admiral Ackbar (well, Eric Bauersfeld) has died:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35965835

    And to get rid of the corny puns in advance, no it's not a trap!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,723
    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    FTax evasion/avoidance by extremely rich people is one of the few things that unites both left and right rich and poor.

    That Cameron's father has been involved just adds to the uncomfortable sense of privilege that has been like a ticking time bomb under his administration since it took over in 2010. (They're saying he hasn't paid tax in 30 years)

    So advantage Corbyn

    "Prime ministers father used some legal tax avoidance vehicles before the PM was born, and for which the is no evidence the PM profits from or indeed has any connection to"

    If that's your election winner, the left are more desperate than I thought.
    Not half as desperate as the crooks you adore
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,178
    Quote not working, @peter_from_putney

    If they vote leave, what's the excuse for such a thing? Sturgeon's scenario was if the UK as a whole votes to leave but Scotland doesn't.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    ydoethur said:

    The problem with this article is that it assumes the Republicans will literally choose anyone but Trump. However, by all accounts the Republican hierarchy are even more afraid of Cruz as candidate than they are at the thought of Trump being President. Cruz's policy positions make Trump's comments on abortion and mass construction look positively sane. He's not that different from Sarah Palin and he's not nearly as good-looking.

    Therefore, if the votes do fall as Keiran suggests, Trump will surely be the unenthusiastically endorsed nominee in order to stop Cruz.

    The only way I can see Trump being stopped under this scenario is if a late surge from Kasich brings him into play. But he's got a lot to do if he's to manage that.

    Mr Herdson has previously assured us that Kasich has no chance of securing the nomination, absolutely none whatsoever.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Plato_Says said:

    If we take the reported numbers protesting as c22k, with a population of only 300k ish - it's quite a percentage.

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Panama will bring down the Iceland PM personally. Everyone expects it of third world tinpot despots - but Gunnlaugson is surely gone soon !

    Yes and no.

    Given a smaller population it's easier to get a higher proportional turnout. It's still entirely possible, nay likely, that everyone coming out to protest would have been against him anyway before any of this.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Moses_ said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Moses_ said:

    It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax evasion or is it avoidance? Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation though?

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/

    Oh Dear! Stones and glass houses, etc.
    Stones, glass houses and -- what is the collective noun for Look, Squirrels?
    LOL
    Ahh.. Tax avoidance by right bad ... Tax avoidance by left " look squirrel" . What's actually the difference between the Guardian and Cameron's Pops? The Guardian refuse to answer the same questions they demand others themselves answer openly .
    The sooner it's banned & its readers exterminated the sooner Britain will be Great again. Or am I missing something?

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    peter_from_putney said:

    Can we expect to see changes, however modest, in JackW's imminent projection of the June EU Referendum voting and turnout?

    I rather think so ..... if would simply being too boring to repeat last week's numbers precisely.

    Your attempt to bore my ARSE is a fruitless endeavour. Many have tried and all have failed.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,171
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Moses_ said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Moses_ said:

    It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax evasion or is it avoidance? Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation though?

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/

    Oh Dear! Stones and glass houses, etc.
    Stones, glass houses and -- what is the collective noun for Look, Squirrels?
    LOL
    Ahh.. Tax avoidance by right bad ... Tax avoidance by left " look squirrel" . What's actually the difference between the Guardian and Cameron's Pops? The Guardian refuse to answer the same questions they demand others themselves answer openly .
    The sooner it's banned & its readers exterminated the sooner Britain will be Great again. Or am I missing something?

    I think it's a legitimate question. Would be pretty shocking hypocrisy if true.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited April 2016
    Well that's a surprise, not.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/04/over-half-of-party-member-respondents-to-our-survey-have-no-confidence-in-the-feldman-review.html
    Certainly, there is nothing real in the proposals to boost ownership by the members of the Party itself. The review could solve one of these problems by dropping the MCA scheme and going for federations instead. Wider debate on wider and deeper ownership – directly elected board members, for example – won’t come under this leadership.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Moses_ said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Moses_ said:

    It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax evasion or is it avoidance? Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation though?

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/

    Oh Dear! Stones and glass houses, etc.
    Stones, glass houses and -- what is the collective noun for Look, Squirrels?
    LOL
    Ahh.. Tax avoidance by right bad ... Tax avoidance by left " look squirrel" . What's actually the difference between the Guardian and Cameron's Pops? The Guardian refuse to answer the same questions they demand others themselves answer openly .
    The sooner it's banned & its readers exterminated the sooner Britain will be Great again. Or am I missing something?

    I thought you had got over your "extermination of the left" obsession.

    No one proposes banning or exterminating anyone or anything, they just pointed out the hypocrisy of one organisation that uses offshore arrangements to optimise its tax arrangements throwing stones at someone else who is alleged to have done the same.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,999
    Indigo said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Now a question: would it be possible for (say) the UK to ask Panama to freeze accounts belonging to terrorists and/or criminals? I'm guessing not.

    I am no expert here, but I imagine the problem is going to be one of identification of the relevant accounts as much as anything else. If you have a regime which allows shell companies to be formed without even needing to show any ID (as I beleive is also the case in Delaware), and that company is controlled by the current holders of bearer shares, and I think there is no legal requirement to list directors or hold general meetings, you are going to have a tough time following the money.
    Thanks.

    I wish I had so much money that tax avoidance would be worthwhile! Its the sort of hassle that's worth putting up with. (Although surely ISAs and the like are 'simple' tax avoidance?)

    Say we were told we could avoid 10% of tax on our earnings by a technically legal mechanism that is against our own moral code. How many of us would do it?

    And how many of us would just close out eyes, lost in the incomprehensible terminology, and just tell our accountant to get us a good deal?
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    Blairmore holdings. ....and the Carroll trust. ......anyone?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,178
    edited April 2016
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    Moses_ said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Moses_ said:

    It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax evasion or is it avoidance? Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation though?

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/

    Oh Dear! Stones and glass houses, etc.
    Stones, glass houses and -- what is the collective noun for Look, Squirrels?
    LOL
    Ahh.. Tax avoidance by right bad ... Tax avoidance by left " look squirrel" . What's actually the difference between the Guardian and Cameron's Pops? The Guardian refuse to answer the same questions they demand others themselves answer openly .
    The sooner it's banned & its readers exterminated the sooner Britain will be Great again. Or am I missing something?

    Hooray, quote working again.

    The irony of the Grauniad, of course, is that without its - ahem - efficient tax arrangements it would have gone out of business years ago because almost nobody reads it. It looks though as if its final demise is approaching rapidly, tax arrangements or no. Personally I shall be rather sorry when that happens, as it is always useful to know what its 124 readers are thinking. All you have to do then is think the opposite and you'll usually be right.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection Countdown:

    33 minutes 33 seconds
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Moses_ said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Tax and Panama -- I'm not expecting the Chancellor to send the Fraud Squad next door but has whichever minister is in charge of collecting tax said anything?

    What law has "next door" broken or fraudulent activity undertaken requiring the fraud squad?
    You'd need to ask someone who *is* expecting the Chancellor to dial 999.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    RUBIO RISING

    Back into 90 / 130 for GOP Nom !
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    malcolmg said:

    Indigo said:

    Roger said:

    FTax evasion/avoidance by extremely rich people is one of the few things that unites both left and right rich and poor.

    That Cameron's father has been involved just adds to the uncomfortable sense of privilege that has been like a ticking time bomb under his administration since it took over in 2010. (They're saying he hasn't paid tax in 30 years)

    So advantage Corbyn

    "Prime ministers father used some legal tax avoidance vehicles before the PM was born, and for which the is no evidence the PM profits from or indeed has any connection to"

    If that's your election winner, the left are more desperate than I thought.
    Not half as desperate as the crooks you adore
    Who did you have in mind ? Outside my family the list of people I adore is remarkably short ;)
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,004
    "To assume a Ryan nomination is possible we have to allow ourselves to believe that after 6 months of voters going to the polls – overwhelmingly backing Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in the process – that somehow someone that didn’t even run can emerge the winner. "

    True. Which does strike me as unlikely too.

    The question that Ryan backers have to answer is if not Trump because he's too unreliable, and if not Cruz because he's too extreme, then why not Kasich?

    Their answer to that may well be 'because he kept losing', and that's not all that unreasonable but then if that is the answer then how does it keep Ryan in play when he didn't even compete? There's no guarantee that he'd have done any better; lots of other establishment candidates entered and finished behind the Ohio governor.

    It seems to me that Kieran's logic is sound save for that one point. The NeverTrump brigade have two flawed choices before they get to Ryan or some other non-runner. Skipping Cruz and Trump would upset a lot and reinforce The Party Always Wins but Kasich is still viable.

    On a related note, there is a rumour that Kasich is really running for the VP slot. I'm not sure I buy that but if ultimately offered it to either Trump or Cruz, he'd be sensible to take it: a flaky running-mate can damage a presidential bid; it doesn't work the other way round. But whether he wants it or not, his best bet is to compete as hard as possible for the top prize so for the moment his strategy should be the same either way.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    richardDodd said:

    Decrepitjohn..Are you suggesting the PM has committed a crime...gosh..what evidence do you have..apart from a smear..

    It was a joke, not a smear. Followed by a serious question: has whichever minister is responsible for HMRC said anything of great moment, or at all?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,723
    JosiasJessop said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Roger said:

    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Interesting and you really think this is a non story?

    It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.

    I believe Panama is one of the very few, possibly the only, country in which bearer shares are still legal. Makes is pretty hard tax someone when you don't know who is the shareholder of the company from day to day. Attempts have been made to get the to clear it up before, but it's the only industry in the country that makes significant money and they are not about to cast their population back into the dark ages.

    Panama may not have a choice.

    Its still pushing water up hill.

    There have been rumours for a while that China is considering making either HK or Macau a tax haven for international clients. Lots of nice liquidity for them. Be interesting to see what people try an do about a tax haven with a superpower backing it. Infact there already is one, Panama is only 13th on the world Bank Secrecy Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Secrecy_Index) The third is the USA, try getting them to tell you about accounts held in the USA by foreigners.
    Considering the Chinese are neck-deep in the Panama story, that wouldn't be a surprise: they'd have much more control.

    However isn't part of the reason that all these dictators, despots and criminals (*) put their money offshore from their own countries is access? Once it's out of their country it's harder for people in their own country to discover about it, and it's more accessible if the worst comes and they need to flee.

    Now a question: would it be possible for (say) the UK to ask Panama to freeze accounts belonging to terrorists and/or criminals? I'm guessing not.

    (*) Naturally not including Cameron's dad ...
    Naturally , we don't want any of the nasty Tory money tied up do we
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Pulpstar said:

    RUBIO RISING

    Back into 90 / 130 for GOP Nom !

    Wot No Cromwell .. :smile:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    edited April 2016
    You can back all the runners on Betfair, including Jeb Bush, Rubio, Scott Walker, Bloomberg and Nikki Haley at about a 2% underround lol
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,999
    malcolmg said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Roger said:

    Indigo said:

    The story behind the story of PanamaGate is fascinating.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

    Interesting and you really think this is a non story?

    It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.

    I believe Panama is one of the very few, possibly the only, country in which bearer shares are still legal. Makes is pretty hard tax someone when you don't know who is the shareholder of the company from day to day. Attempts have been made to get the to clear it up before, but it's the only industry in the country that makes significant money and they are not about to cast their population back into the dark ages.

    Panama may not have a choice.

    Its still pushing water up hill.

    There have been rumours for a while that China is considering making either HK or Macau a tax haven for international clients. Lots of nice liquidity for them. Be interesting to see what people try an do about a tax haven with a superpower backing it. Infact there already is one, Panama is only 13th on the world Bank Secrecy Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Secrecy_Index) The third is the USA, try getting them to tell you about accounts held in the USA by foreigners.
    Considering the Chinese are neck-deep in the Panama story, that wouldn't be a surprise: they'd have much more control.

    However isn't part of the reason that all these dictators, despots and criminals (*) put their money offshore from their own countries is access? Once it's out of their country it's harder for people in their own country to discover about it, and it's more accessible if the worst comes and they need to flee.

    Now a question: would it be possible for (say) the UK to ask Panama to freeze accounts belonging to terrorists and/or criminals? I'm guessing not.

    (*) Naturally not including Cameron's dad ...
    Naturally , we don't want any of the nasty Tory money tied up do we
    Naturally, no true Scotsman would have any money tied up in Panama. They learnt their lesson after the Darien Scheme. ;)
This discussion has been closed.