Ah, The Telegraph, owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, residents of Sark for tax avoidance purposes.
It's funny how the press are so eager to run these stories, in view of their own tax affairs. The Guardian (linked to the Caymans), and The Daily Mail (owner dodges tax through complicated non-dom status) should get their own houses in order and pay their fair share, before criticising others.
You make a good point. I wonder whether the Barrclay Brothers in particular are feeling a little uneasy at the direction their paper is going with this. They have a reputation among the Sarkese for walking away if things aren't to their liking
The newspapers are loathe to print unfavourable reports on the personal lives or financial affairs of their respective owners, for obvious reasons.
For years Private Eye were reporting a deal between two newspaper proprietors not to report on each others' private lives. Unfortunately I cannot remember the papers or people concerned, but it is certainly an abuse of their position.
Indonesia destroyed 23 foreign fishing boats on Tuesday, as worsening relations over the disputed South China Sea drive countries to take tougher action to defend their maritime sovereignty.
Maritime and Fisheries Minister Susi Pudjiastuti said her agency sank 10 Malaysian and 13 Vietnamese boats that were caught fishing illegally in Indonesian waters.
She vowed to mete out the same punishment to any vessel found poaching, no matter its origin. “If there is an illegal fishing boat from America, we will also sink it,” Ms. Pudjiastuti said.
Ah, The Telegraph, owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, residents of Sark for tax avoidance purposes.
It's funny how the press are so eager to run these stories, in view of their own tax affairs. The Guardian (linked to the Caymans), and The Daily Mail (owner dodges tax through complicated non-dom status) should get their own houses in order and pay their fair share, before criticising others.
You make a good point. I wonder whether the Barrclay Brothers in particular are feeling a little uneasy at the direction their paper is going with this. They have a reputation among the Sarkese for walking away if things aren't to their liking
The newspapers are loathe to print unfavourable reports on the personal lives or financial affairs of their respective owners, for obvious reasons.
For years Private Eye were reporting a deal between two newspaper proprietors not to report on each others' private lives. Unfortunately I cannot remember the papers or people concerned, but it is certainly an abuse of their position.
Well the whole phone "hacking" thing was the same. Every newspaper, except the Indy, did it, and nobody said anything. What little we know of The Operation Motorman files showed that NOTW was nowhere near the biggest buyer of these services. The Mirror and the Daily Mail were in a league of their own, but it seems the Daily Mail stopped after Motorman, Mirror carried on and NOTW used opportunity to get better scoops.
Thanks for the post on your meeting. The results you report are similar to the views and split that I meet from that well known representative sample, The Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association. Though we probably have a smaller proportion of undecideds.
Assuming our samples are in anyway representative, the interesting thing seems to me that the general consensus on here that the ABs will be strongly for remain may well be wrong.
Ah, The Telegraph, owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, residents of Sark for tax avoidance purposes.
It's funny how the press are so eager to run these stories, in view of their own tax affairs. The Guardian (linked to the Caymans), and The Daily Mail (owner dodges tax through complicated non-dom status) should get their own houses in order and pay their fair share, before criticising others.
You make a good point. I wonder whether the Barrclay Brothers in particular are feeling a little uneasy at the direction their paper is going with this. They have a reputation among the Sarkese for walking away if things aren't to their liking
The newspapers are loathe to print unfavourable reports on the personal lives or financial affairs of their respective owners, for obvious reasons.
For years Private Eye were reporting a deal between two newspaper proprietors not to report on each others' private lives. Unfortunately I cannot remember the papers or people concerned, but it is certainly an abuse of their position.
Well the whole phone "hacking" thing was the same. Every newspaper, except the Indy, did it, and nobody said anything. What little we know of The Operation Motorman files showed that NOTW was nowhere near the biggest buyer of these services. The Mirror and the Daily Mail were in a league of their own, but it seems the Daily Mail stopped after Motorman, Mirror carried on and NOTW used opportunity to get better scoops.
Thanks for the post on your meeting. The results you report are similar to the views and split that I meet from that well known representative sample, The Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association. Though we probably have a smaller proportion of undecideds.
Assuming our samples are in anyway representative, the interesting thing seems to me that the general consensus on here that the ABs will be strongly for remain may well be wrong.
I think you'd get a different picture in urban areas, and amongst a slightly younger group, and amongst people who are not Conservative Party members.
Thanks for the post on your meeting. The results you report are similar to the views and split that I meet from that well known representative sample, The Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association. Though we probably have a smaller proportion of undecideds.
Assuming our samples are in anyway representative, the interesting thing seems to me that the general consensus on here that the ABs will be strongly for remain may well be wrong.
I think you'd get a different picture in urban areas, and amongst a slightly younger group, and amongst people who are not Conservative Party members.
So does anyone have any info on today's referendum in the Netherlands on the EU-Ukraine deal. I don't really get what the fuss is about, but apparently the people are going to vote it down and the EU-Ukraine deal is then dead in the water as the Dutch government is going to respect the will of the people and rescind their ratification.
The polls indicate it will be voted down today triggering a crisis in the EU. The EU, as only they could, apparently have said the result is only advisory so no doubt they will prevaricate and in the end ignore the result. The problem for the EU is that every time they refuse the democratic will of an individual Country they tighten the rope round their own neck and advance the cause of the right and it may also have a considerable influence on Brexit. These are very interesting times and I am finding it increasingly difficult to come to a decision on how I will vote in June.
One complication is that it under Dutch law it is only advisory and that is especially so if turnout is under 30%. I know pro-ratification Dutch who are abstaining rather than voting in favour as they think the best way to "win" is to not turnout so the 30% threshold isn't met.
That seems like a really stupid idea, surely the best way to win is go out and vote for one's desired outcome. If turnout is above 30% and it is a "no" vote then those people are going to be feeling mighty stupid, deservedly so.
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And when has a BBC talking head ever been wrong...Even on the secrecy aspect, that does not equal anything illegal or immoral....
Panama has other advantages. It is the cross roads of North America / Latin America, while being stable (and unofficially protected by the US). It uses the USD. It is easy to get people who are bilingual. I don't fancy wanting to base my business in Columbia thanks, when I can do it in Panama.
The BBC are unlikely to wheel out a tax expert who disagrees with their meme. They have form.
I guess BBC have access to lots of Tax advisors, at one time didn't they use them to steer highly paid employees / performers into tax efficient schemes?
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And when has a BBC talking head ever been wrong...Even on the secrecy aspect, that does not equal anything illegal or immoral....
Panama has other advantages. It is the cross roads of North America / Latin America, while being stable (and unofficially protected by the US). It uses the USD. It is easy to get people who are bilingual. I don't fancy wanting to base my business in Columbia thanks, when I can do it in Panama.
The BBC are unlikely to wheel out a tax expert who disagrees with their meme. They have form.
I guess BBC have access to lots of Tax advisors, at one time didn't they use them to steer highly paid employees / performers into tax efficient schemes?
The media and entertainment industry are experts at arranging their affairs to be as tax efficient as possible. Until recently, the vast majority of the BBC "talent" aided by the Beeb themselves took steps to make sure they weren't filling the CoE coffers unnecessarily.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And who was this tax expert? Not the egregious Richard Murphy, perhaps? He's no more a tax expert than I'm a marathon runner.
I didn't catch his name but the BBC do tend to be cautious so I imagine he was reliable. He wasn't suggesting any illegality or impropriety
Mr. H, allegedly, newsreaders et al. set up companies rather than get paid directly by the BBC, which reduced their tax bills.
Mr. Jessop, bit difficult to say as I've not been into politics for nearly as long as most here, and have little interest in modern history.
Whilst there are specific issues, the main underlying problem for me is that the EU is on a path of ever closer union, and if it says otherwise I frankly don't believe it. Accountability demands that we be able to hire and fire out government, but we can't do that with the EU.
'the Dutch government is going to respect the will of the people and rescind their ratification'
Really? This is precisely what Cameron claimed he couldn't do on Lisbon, right?
Cameron could not have rescinded Lisbon. He did not have the votes in parliament to do so - LibDums and Labour against. Of course, we were lied to about Lisbon - it was just "a tidying up exercise" according to the Labour government.
Wine makers in southwestern France have hijacked five tankers full of Spanish wine on the border, pouring the equivalent of 90,000 bottles of red and white down the drain in protest at “unfair competition”.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I've always assumed that places like Panama are for people who are systematically stripping the wealth of their country, or hiding vast earnings from their drugs empires, or facilitating payments for arms shipments, rather than trying to find a way to stop HMRC taking 45% as PAYE. But I may be naïve....
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
In my case, I was strongly pro-EU in the 1980's, because I thought it necessary for Western European countries to unite against the Warsaw Pact.
So, for me, the tipping points were probably the end of Communism, then followed by our ejection from the ERM. That convinced me that currency unions were a stupid idea, and that the Euro would be a stupid idea. The Euro has indeed proved to be a stupid idea. They pushed me in a strongly Eurosceptic direction, even if it not towards necessarily supporting Leave.
I can't think of any single thing that has made me say "that's it", after 1992, more the general direction of travel. Powers are always transferred away from national institutions towards EU institutions, never in the other direction.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And who was this tax expert? Not the egregious Richard Murphy, perhaps? He's no more a tax expert than I'm a marathon runner.
I can't comment on your marathon skills, but Murphy has good credentials as a tax expert - he knows his stuff. He has quite specific (opponents would say extreme) views, not all of which I share, but they're based a good understanding of UK tax law and practice.
What makes you see him as not an expert, other than his inconveniently leftwing views?
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
Before Lisbon or the idea of the EU Constitution I was comfortable with the EU. It was the ECB's and ECJ's reactions to the EMU crisis that made me rethink everything wrt to the EU, for me it showed that when push comes to shove the EU institutions will do whatever it takes to protect their political consensus, even ignore and break their own rules. It showed me that everything and anything can be sacrificed at the altar of the Euro, it is why I think any agreement Dave has with the EU is worthless.
Thanks for the post on your meeting. The results you report are similar to the views and split that I meet from that well known representative sample, The Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association. Though we probably have a smaller proportion of undecideds.
Assuming our samples are in anyway representative, the interesting thing seems to me that the general consensus on here that the ABs will be strongly for remain may well be wrong.
I think you'd get a different picture in urban areas, and amongst a slightly younger group, and amongst people who are not Conservative Party members.
You may well be correct, especially about an urban versus rural/small town split. I am less convinced party membership has much to do with it though or indeed age.
However, we are talking here about two small groups each with a different and unusual common characteristic, your are all party members mine are all men with one or more long term ailments or medical conditions. So, straws in the wind, nothing more.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
My guess would be that Cameron can't give the unequivocal never, not now or in the future denial nor has anybody in my close family, because I would guess that somewhere / sometime money has been arranged efficiently for somebody related to him.
But, when Cameron's father died, Cameron had been a leading politician for a number of years. Given past politicians problems with money, shares, interests, that they made sure everything was as simple as possible. Even in the will, Cameron was left only a modest sum compared to the other relatives and his brother / sisters had previously been given the houses etc.
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
In the 80s I was happy with the concept of a common market, but as the EEC morphed into the EU super state during the 90s, it became apparent it was not something I could support.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And who was this tax expert? Not the egregious Richard Murphy, perhaps? He's no more a tax expert than I'm a marathon runner.
I didn't catch his name but the BBC do tend to be cautious so I imagine he was reliable. He wasn't suggesting any illegality or impropriety
'Cautious' - smearing, without getting so close with their accusations as to land themselves with a defamation suit.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And who was this tax expert? Not the egregious Richard Murphy, perhaps? He's no more a tax expert than I'm a marathon runner.
I can't comment on your marathon skills, but Murphy has good credentials as a tax expert - he knows his stuff. He has quite specific (opponents would say extreme) views, not all of which I share, but they're based a good understanding of UK tax law and practice.
What makes you see him as not an expert, other than his inconveniently leftwing views?
2 seconds google search, brings up stuff like people from Oxford Uni saying he talks bollocks when it comes to his claims about tax gap.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I've always assumed that places like Panama are for people who are systematically stripping the wealth of their country, or hiding vast earnings from their drugs empires, or facilitating payments for arms shipments, rather than trying to find a way to stop HMRC taking 45% as PAYE. But I may be naïve....
If you need to arrange ~ 20 million efficiently, the Isle of Man/Guernsey might be your place.
If you need to hide 20 billion you've collected from the plebs during your time as dictator Panama is more your place.
BVI and Panama look like the Real Madrid/Barca of the tax dodging world to me
At risk of sounding like a paranoid leaver, if it wasn't for this wonderful website I would have no idea that the Dutch were voting on the EU's proposed deal on Ukraine.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And who was this tax expert? Not the egregious Richard Murphy, perhaps? He's no more a tax expert than I'm a marathon runner.
I didn't catch his name but the BBC do tend to be cautious so I imagine he was reliable. He wasn't suggesting any illegality or impropriety
Richard Murphy isn't "cautious" in his views....and they use him a lot...as for reliable, a lot of very well qualified people think he isn't always so. See link below from Oxford University.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I'm still unsure about this. I commented last night that Cameron's (3rd?) statement was either very cleverly and carefully advised in order to try and shut down the matter while not lying about offshore arrangements that he in fact benefited from; or it was poorly advised because it made him look shifty when he had nothing to hide. I still find it hard to believe option 2: the no. 10 spin machine is nowhere near the best we've seen, but that's a silly mistake to make.
I agree with you that neither of them is especially venal or stupid, and they've been careful in general to make sure they are as "clean" as possible in order to prioritise political sense - I mean that as a compliment, it's evidence that they are in politics to do (what they believe to be) good rather than line their own pockets. But the problem is that avoidance is a grey area and the perception shifts, and it's easy to believe that one's own offshore fund is "just what all the good chaps have", unlike say the Dutch mixer holding structure of a multinational that's "engaged in immoral tax avoidance". Bob Diamond's appearance before the select committee following the Barclays Capital blow up was a masterpiece in failing to spot the perception shift that had begun, for example. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And when has a BBC talking head ever been wrong...Even on the secrecy aspect, that does not equal anything illegal or immoral....
Panama has other advantages. It is the cross roads of North America / Latin America, while being stable (and unofficially protected by the US). It uses the USD. It is easy to get people who are bilingual. I don't fancy wanting to base my business in Columbia thanks, when I can do it in Panama.
No one did suggest immorality or illegality just secrecy. If I arrived at the Syrian border wearing a burka and carrying a briefcase with $20,000 in it it's possible I could be looking for a timeshare in Raqqa but you wouldn't blame anyone for being suspicious
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was today caught in his party’s growing anti-Semitism storm after directing people to a website that has carried “tributes” to suicide bombers.
Labour MPs reacted with fury after learning that in 2014 Mr McDonnell linked from his own web page to the site, which once carried sympathetic articles about at least two bombers.
One of the pieces focused on a man who murdered 19 Israelis outside a nightclub.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was today caught in his party’s growing anti-Semitism storm after directing people to a website that has carried “tributes” to suicide bombers.
Labour MPs reacted with fury after learning that in 2014 Mr McDonnell linked from his own web page to the site, which once carried sympathetic articles about at least two bombers.
One of the pieces focused on a man who murdered 19 Israelis outside a nightclub.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I've always assumed that places like Panama are for people who are systematically stripping the wealth of their country, or hiding vast earnings from their drugs empires, or facilitating payments for arms shipments, rather than trying to find a way to stop HMRC taking 45% as PAYE. But I may be naïve....
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was today caught in his party’s growing anti-Semitism storm after directing people to a website that has carried “tributes” to suicide bombers.
Labour MPs reacted with fury after learning that in 2014 Mr McDonnell linked from his own web page to the site, which once carried sympathetic articles about at least two bombers.
One of the pieces focused on a man who murdered 19 Israelis outside a nightclub.
What a shock....terrorist sympathiser, like we didn't already know. Unfortunately all this stuff is priced in and bizarrely the likes of the BBC never seem very interested.
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?'
Yes, in the first 15 / 20 years years when it was a trading block of countries with similar GDP's
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
Mr, Jessop, I was firmly in favour of our membership of the EEC and voted to stay in the 1975 referendum. I trusted the great and the good who told me that Tony Benn, Peter Shore and the rest were scaremongering and our system of Parliamentary Democracy was safe.
As the EEC morphed into the EC I became wary but what tipped me over the edge was Mastricht. So much that has happened since has made me more and more convinced that the UK would be a better place outside.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And who was this tax expert? Not the egregious Richard Murphy, perhaps? He's no more a tax expert than I'm a marathon runner.
I can't comment on your marathon skills, but Murphy has good credentials as a tax expert - he knows his stuff. He has quite specific (opponents would say extreme) views, not all of which I share, but they're based a good understanding of UK tax law and practice.
What makes you see him as not an expert, other than his inconveniently leftwing views?
2 seconds google search, brings up stuff like people from Oxford Uni saying he talks bollocks when it comes to his claims about tax gap.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
I've not looked at this for 5 years or so but I seem to remember that if you sum all of the "savings" from "closing loopholes" claimed by Chancellors from Brown onwards you get a significantly larger number than the "tax gap" that each of those Chancellors at that time insisted was overstated. Fundamentally nobody really knows, because of the number of assumptions about behavioural change that you have to include in the model of the impact of changing the law.
Panamapapers -Once again, No 10 is keeping the story going by constantly changing the story. The PM really does need to have a good clear out but he has been warned about his for years.
Perhaps I have been listening to too many phone-in programmes but it is not a certainty that the Tories will win the next GE, there is definitely a shift going on despite of Jeremy Corbyn.
Assuming our samples are in anyway representative, the interesting thing seems to me that the general consensus on here that the ABs will be strongly for remain may well be wrong.
I would say there is a massive opportunity for the pollster to get vast amounts of egg on their face over the EuRef poll.
There are likely to be a lot of shy Leavers given the unpopularity of that view in right-on sections of society, and its associations with fruitcakery, lots of nice people won't say they are leavers because their friends will assume they are a kipper
There is so many ways their sample could be hideously unrepresentative given the important demographics, ABs tend to be out at work for long hours, old people tend not to answer the phone or be on online panels.
There are likely to be a lot of people who are DK or DNV who haven't thought about the issue much and could go either way, or indeed stay at home.
There is a massive possibility that "events" could transform the argument almost overnight, with a big happening on migrants, terrorism or possibly EU/ECJ idiocy.
Dave could pull it around for remain or overplay his hand and turn hordes of voters off, from many comments I have heard he is on the cusp at the moment and it could go either way. Conversely Farage could invite someone even more idiotic than Galloway to speak for Leave.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I'm still unsure about this. I commented last night that Cameron's (3rd?) statement was either very cleverly and carefully advised in order to try and shut down the matter while not lying about offshore arrangements that he in fact benefited from; or it was poorly advised because it made him look shifty when he had nothing to hide. I still find it hard to believe option 2: the no. 10 spin machine is nowhere near the best we've seen, but that's a silly mistake to make.
I agree with you that neither of them is especially venal or stupid, and they've been careful in general to make sure they are as "clean" as possible in order to prioritise political sense - I mean that as a compliment, it's evidence that they are in politics to do (what they believe to be) good rather than line their own pockets. But the problem is that avoidance is a grey area and the perception shifts, and it's easy to believe that one's own offshore fund is "just what all the good chaps have", unlike say the Dutch mixer holding structure of a multinational that's "engaged in immoral tax avoidance". Bob Diamond's appearance before the select committee following the Barclays Capital blow up was a masterpiece in failing to spot the perception shift that had begun, for example. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The wider issue is more important. If we spend time obsessing about individual politicians that may get lost. I'd also say that a level of "financial planning" is factored into public perceptions of leading Tories. It would be far more toxic for a Labour politician. Obviously, if lies are being told or denials look like non-denials that changes things. But I just can't see it.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I've always assumed that places like Panama are for people who are systematically stripping the wealth of their country, or hiding vast earnings from their drugs empires, or facilitating payments for arms shipments, rather than trying to find a way to stop HMRC taking 45% as PAYE. But I may be naïve....
Panamapapers -Once again, No 10 is keeping the story going by constantly changing the story. The PM really does need to have a good clear out but he has been warned about his for years.
Perhaps I have been listening to too many phone-in programmes but it is not a certainty that the Tories will win the next GE, there is definitely a shift going on despite of Jeremy Corbyn.
Cameron was under a lot more pressure over phone hacking. Those were decisions to associate with people as an adult and totally in his control....The phone-in's and media were all over that and had months and months of terrible headlines. And in the end the Tories did better in 2015 than in 2010.
Even the Guardian have just printed basically well even if Cameron did benefit in the past from his father's planning, that isn't a decision by Cameron that he had any control over.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
My guess would be that Cameron can't give the unequivocal never, not now or in the future denial nor has anybody in my close family, because I would guess that somewhere / sometime money has been arranged efficiently for somebody related to him.
How Cameron can be sure none of him, his wife and children is named in a trust as a beneficiary or a yet to be created trust is daft. I could not say the same of my family. No one - not even Corbyn could! For example there could be minors (under 18) trusts created through Wills of people leaving money to them or to adults but if they do not survive then their childreen etc.
Eu membership has led to significant improvements to health and safety at work,notably the 1992 SixPack which included the Manual Lifting and Handling Regualtions which have saved many a workers' back,the Visual Display Regulations improving eye health and free eye tests,and the Personal Protective Equipment Regualtions,which meant they couldn't send someone to clear a real shithouse without some gloves and overalls. I intend to vote Remain.
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
I used to be fairly neutral about the EU but I turned against the EU over their treatment of Greece and Cyprus, which I feel was immoral.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was today caught in his party’s growing anti-Semitism storm after directing people to a website that has carried “tributes” to suicide bombers.
Labour MPs reacted with fury after learning that in 2014 Mr McDonnell linked from his own web page to the site, which once carried sympathetic articles about at least two bombers.
One of the pieces focused on a man who murdered 19 Israelis outside a nightclub.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
My guess would be that Cameron can't give the unequivocal never, not now or in the future denial nor has anybody in my close family, because I would guess that somewhere / sometime money has been arranged efficiently for somebody related to him.
How Cameron can be sure none of him, his wife and children is named in a trust as a beneficiary or a yet to be created trust is daft. I could not say the same of my family. No one - not even Corbyn could! For example there could be minors (under 18) trusts created through Wills of people leaving money to them or to adults but if they do not survive then their childreen etc.
Well exactly, it is when did you stop beating your wife question.
I don't think anybody can say hand on heart, I know all the financial ins and outs of every close family member and they once gave me a car or a birthday gift / wedding gift etc and they could have been tax efficient on something and thus technically I benefited.
If Cameron is being honest and its salary, some savings and his house(s) [Staines thinks he still owns the one in Oxfordshire). Not sure how much "cleaner" he could be on this matter that is within his own control. I have to say I am shocked he doesn't have shares / other investments etc, at least in a blind trust.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
No, it wasn't a matter of 'some people' disagreeing with him. It was complete nonsense. He'd chucked in all sorts of absurdities, such as capital allowances (which he doesn't seem to understand) and regional aid. He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
Before Lisbon or the idea of the EU Constitution I was comfortable with the EU. It was the ECB's and ECJ's reactions to the EMU crisis that made me rethink everything wrt to the EU, for me it showed that when push comes to shove the EU institutions will do whatever it takes to protect their political consensus, even ignore and break their own rules. It showed me that everything and anything can be sacrificed at the altar of the Euro, it is why I think any agreement Dave has with the EU is worthless.
Ah, The Telegraph, owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, residents of Sark for tax avoidance purposes.
It's funny how the press are so eager to run these stories, in view of their own tax affairs. The Guardian (linked to the Caymans), and The Daily Mail (owner dodges tax through complicated non-dom status) should get their own houses in order and pay their fair share, before criticising others.
You make a good point. I wonder whether the Barrclay Brothers in particular are feeling a little uneasy at the direction their paper is going with this. They have a reputation among the Sarkese for walking away if things aren't to their liking
The newspapers are loathe to print unfavourable reports on the personal lives or financial affairs of their respective owners, for obvious reasons.
For years Private Eye were reporting a deal between two newspaper proprietors not to report on each others' private lives. Unfortunately I cannot remember the papers or people concerned, but it is certainly an abuse of their position.
The two papers concerned were the Daily Mail (Rothermere) and the Telegraph (the Barclay brothers).
At risk of sounding like a paranoid leaver, if it wasn't for this wonderful website I would have no idea that the Dutch were voting on the EU's proposed deal on Ukraine.
Apart from general dislike of the EU, what is the objection to the Ukraine treaty?
Ukraine seems to be an ally worth cultivating, rather than leaving to the Putinists.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
I've no idea of the differences between Guernsey and Panama from a tax perspective. I am sure that there are legitimate reasons for using Panama. But if I were engaged on a project with a counterparty in Panama I'd take a careful second look (just like I would with Liechtenstein, Vaduz or Andorra or Dutch Antilles). If it were the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, BVI or Cayman I assume it was tax planning but not be unduly concerned (provided, of course, it passed my usual KYC, ML and other Onboarding checks)
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
And fining companies for capital investment (which is effectively what he proposed, by claiming that capital allowances were part of his 'tax gap') might have a bit of an effect on capital investment.
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
Primarily when the EU started taking over vast amounts of national competencies, such that it largely didn't matter who we elect in Westminster we get the same policies in so many areas. It's unhealthy for our democracy for voters not to be offered a real choice, we look across the pond and see the Americans likely to be offered the choice of Trump or Clinton, say what you want about their policies, thats a real choice, their country will be substantially difference based on who they chose. The UK under Blair or Cameron, no difference at all, especially since there isn't a specifically Labour or Tory way of nodding through EC Directive AB/123/X.
More recently the big problem for me is that subsidiarity was and is a lie. There has been no return of decision making competence to the countries as was promised, and the movement has all be in the other direction. This is particularly bad because it was the basis on which Maastricht was sold to us.
Finally as I have started to look closer into things, my big bugbear is the ECJ, a collection of politically appointed judges, with what could charitably be described as varying legal experience, some of whom where not even judges before being appointed to the ECJ, who have proved incapable of giving ruling which are even consistent with their own prior rulings, and feel empowered to ride roughshod over international agreements, decisions made by the (democratic) Council of Europe, and even rulings by the UN Security Council!
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
I wasn't politically conscious until the early-mid 1990s, but I was sceptical of EU integration by the time I was.
I was pro-single market, but anti-euro in the 1998-2003 period, and felt Hague's line of "In Europe, not Run by Europe" made sense. I voted for IDS, to rule it out for good, and because I felt Clarke would split the party.
By the time the EU constitution came round in 2004-2005 (which I campaigned on for a referendum) the penny finally dropped, and I moved off the fence and became a sympathetic Outter at that time. Issues with immigration and integration afterwards put me off my previous view that Eastern Europe states would act as a counterweight to France/Germany and take the EU in a different direction with the UK as an ally. I was pro expansion before.
Last chance saloon for me was dodging the Lisbon Treaty but that didn't happen.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And who was this tax expert? Not the egregious Richard Murphy, perhaps? He's no more a tax expert than I'm a marathon runner.
I can't comment on your marathon skills, but Murphy has good credentials as a tax expert - he knows his stuff. He has quite specific (opponents would say extreme) views, not all of which I share, but they're based a good understanding of UK tax law and practice.
What makes you see him as not an expert, other than his inconveniently leftwing views?
He is hugely inconsistent in what he says on different occasions. He seems not to understand EU law when commenting on companies basing themselves in one EU country and providing services/goods to others. He gets confused between taxing turnover and profits and between single country reporting and worldwide profits. He makes assumptions which are not borne out by the facts.
He is not a tax expert at all. He is an ordinary accountant with no particular expertise, who gets airtime as a talking head, that's all. It is very easy to pull apart his arguments - and plenty of people who are tax experts have done so.
Re EU, I wasn't keen since the whole Euro debate. It changed the political landscape in a fundamental way - Lisbon added to my concerns.
However I was still persuaded for Remain as I thought the Tory leadership wouldn't ever advocate such things. Then we had Merkelypse.
It's demonstrated to me without doubt that all the little examples re loss of sovereignty do add up and our country is slipping through our fingers. Cameron's negotiations haven't yielded a step back from this. He didn't deliver on his previous big words. He's in the same camp as New Labour. I didn't expect that. More fool me.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
No, it wasn't a matter of 'some people' disagreeing with him. It was complete nonsense. He'd chucked in all sorts of absurdities, such as capital allowances (which he doesn't seem to understand) and regional aid. He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
I didn't say "some" necessarily meant "few"....
Capital allowances are a relevant consideration in the discussion. Their use in tax-efficient P&M leasing for example is a big avoidance opportunity, it's been cat-and-mouse at least since the quarter-end company changes in the 90s. Not sure about the reference to regional aid; and the relationship between taxation and incentive is a massively complicated area. A lot of more right-wing analysis is premised on the idea that if you tax a behaviour more highly there's always an alternative behaviour which will benefit, but there's lots of evidence to the contrary - the New Jersey state tax hike is one example that's relevant; as is the willingness of lots of rich people to live in NYC despite paying some of the highest direct tax rates in the West.
Ah, The Telegraph, owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, residents of Sark for tax avoidance purposes.
It's funny how the press are so eager to run these stories, in view of their own tax affairs. The Guardian (linked to the Caymans), and The Daily Mail (owner dodges tax through complicated non-dom status) should get their own houses in order and pay their fair share, before criticising others.
You make a good point. I wonder whether the Barrclay Brothers in particular are feeling a little uneasy at the direction their paper is going with this. They have a reputation among the Sarkese for walking away if things aren't to their liking
The newspapers are loathe to print unfavourable reports on the personal lives or financial affairs of their respective owners, for obvious reasons.
For years Private Eye were reporting a deal between two newspaper proprietors not to report on each others' private lives. Unfortunately I cannot remember the papers or people concerned, but it is certainly an abuse of their position.
The two papers concerned were the Daily Mail (Rothermere) and the Telegraph (the Barclay brothers).
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I've always assumed that places like Panama are for people who are systematically stripping the wealth of their country, or hiding vast earnings from their drugs empires, or facilitating payments for arms shipments, rather than trying to find a way to stop HMRC taking 45% as PAYE. But I may be naïve....
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
No, it wasn't a matter of 'some people' disagreeing with him. It was complete nonsense. He'd chucked in all sorts of absurdities, such as capital allowances (which he doesn't seem to understand) and regional aid. He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
I didn't say "some" necessarily meant "few"....
Capital allowances are a relevant consideration in the discussion. Their use in tax-efficient P&M leasing for example is a big avoidance opportunity, it's been cat-and-mouse at least since the quarter-end company changes in the 90s. Not sure about the reference to regional aid; and the relationship between taxation and incentive is a massively complicated area. A lot of more right-wing analysis is premised on the idea that if you tax a behaviour more highly there's always an alternative behaviour which will benefit, but there's lots of evidence to the contrary - the New Jersey state tax hike is one example that's relevant; as is the willingness of lots of rich people to live in NYC despite paying some of the highest direct tax rates in the West.
The point is, he bunged the entire amount of capital allowances into his 'tax gap'. That is 100% nonsense by any reckoning. The guy is a twerp.
So does anyone have any info on today's referendum in the Netherlands on the EU-Ukraine deal. I don't really get what the fuss is about, but apparently the people are going to vote it down and the EU-Ukraine deal is then dead in the water as the Dutch government is going to respect the will of the people and rescind their ratification.
The argument for the deal (which was agreed by both sides and has already been partly implemented) is that it binds the Ukraine more closely to the EU, giving them a greater feeling of security as they try to maintain independence from Russia, and it's got various free trade aspects that are usually a Good Thing. The arguments against are that it might be the thin end of the wedge to further free movement, that the Ukraine government is pretty dodgy, and - probably more significantly - that the Dutch are feeling generally fed up with EU deals.
Turnout is expected to be low (most people aren't really focused on the Ukraine and it's raining) and it's consultative, but the Government is likely to ask the EU to have another think and try to redraft some aspects not yet implemented. It's part of a new Dutch system allowing referenda if 300,000 ask for them.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
If one looks back at the pernicious income tax rates of the 1960s, 1970s and into the early 1980s it will be a wonder how people that went to a public school were funded in that time unless they sacrificed (down sized) their family home. This does not just apply to Conservatives but also to Blair, Balls etc.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
I've no idea of the differences between Guernsey and Panama from a tax perspective. I am sure that there are legitimate reasons for using Panama. But if I were engaged on a project with a counterparty in Panama I'd take a careful second look (just like I would with Liechtenstein, Vaduz or Andorra or Dutch Antilles). If it were the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, BVI or Cayman I assume it was tax planning but not be unduly concerned (provided, of course, it passed my usual KYC, ML and other Onboarding checks)
All are equally dodgy, just bogus legal tax evasion purely for rich people. If it was all above board they would allow ordinary people to have their salaries paid there rather than robbing them direct.
Thanks for all the answers to my questions. They are a small but interesting range of replies.
I was relatively happy post Maastricht. We had the opt out on the Social Charter, our rebate, and access to a large relatively harmonized market. While the Bonn-Paris axis was stronger then than the Berlin-Paris one is now, it was also more balanced, enabling Britain to influence it.
Now with Merkel dominant and every greater powers being assumed by Brussels with no opt outs for the UK, and with British views not aligned with those of France, it is evident we have bugger all influence on real decision-making within the EU. Meanwhile, while still important, the relative importance, and relative future prospects of the EU economy are waning.
Being the spouse who is seen as nothing more than a cheque book, and being despised for complaining about that, is not a good relationship to stay in.
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I've always assumed that places like Panama are for people who are systematically stripping the wealth of their country, or hiding vast earnings from their drugs empires, or facilitating payments for arms shipments, rather than trying to find a way to stop HMRC taking 45% as PAYE. But I may be naïve....
So which category does Cameron Senior fall in to?
It would only be a guess. Let's get the ouija board out and ask him....
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. .......
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And who was this tax expert? Not the egregious Richard Murphy, perhaps? He's no more a tax expert than I'm a marathon runner.
I can't comment on your marathon skills, but Murphy has good credentials as a tax expert - he knows his stuff. He has quite specific (opponents would say extreme) views, not all of which I share, but they're based a good understanding of UK tax law and practice.
What makes you see him as not an expert, other than his inconveniently leftwing views?
He is hugely inconsistent in what he says on different occasions. He seems not to understand EU law when commenting on companies basing themselves in one EU country and providing services/goods to others. He gets confused between taxing turnover and profits and between single country reporting and worldwide profits. He makes assumptions which are not borne out by the facts.
He is not a tax expert at all. He is an ordinary accountant with no particular expertise, who gets airtime as a talking head, that's all. It is very easy to pull apart his arguments - and plenty of people who are tax experts have done so.
Mr Murphy is of course a man with his own version of principles who used to (and may still) run a business from his home without paying business rates.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
I've no idea of the differences between Guernsey and Panama from a tax perspective. I am sure that there are legitimate reasons for using Panama. But if I were engaged on a project with a counterparty in Panama I'd take a careful second look (just like I would with Liechtenstein, Vaduz or Andorra or Dutch Antilles). If it were the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, BVI or Cayman I assume it was tax planning but not be unduly concerned (provided, of course, it passed my usual KYC, ML and other Onboarding checks)
From a "pure" tax POV I wouldn't say there's a whole amount of difference between those jurisdictions. It's broadly reg and privacy, and of course if you're doing something "interesting" with your tax then privacy is a useful ingredient - though of course there are plenty of legitimate reasons for pursuing it.
Panama used to be quite innovative with one or two legal structures that were well suited to asset protection in a multi-generational context, but I think Guernsey then copied their foundation company model which eliminated that particular advantage. Not sure if it ultimately saw that much take-up.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I've always assumed that places like Panama are for people who are systematically stripping the wealth of their country, or hiding vast earnings from their drugs empires, or facilitating payments for arms shipments, rather than trying to find a way to stop HMRC taking 45% as PAYE. But I may be naïve....
Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
Probably ever since we began practising agriculture, and ceased to be hunter-gatherers.
It's really quite striking that every attempt to legislate the wealthy man and woman out of existence has failed.
Who said anything about legislation? Wealth is a good thing and it is something that most people aspire to. But there is a level at which it becomes obscene and causes anger, especially at times when the majority are seeing their spending power stagnate or fall. In the end that leads to commotion of one kind or another. In the UK we have been relatively (though not completely) shielded from this, but you only need to look elsewhere -and sometimes pretty close to home - to see how it usually plays out. And these days, 24 news cycles, internet and hacking amplify everything. It's much harder to hide extreme wealth than it used to be.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I've always assumed that places like Panama are for people who are systematically stripping the wealth of their country, or hiding vast earnings from their drugs empires, or facilitating payments for arms shipments, rather than trying to find a way to stop HMRC taking 45% as PAYE. But I may be naïve....
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
(Snip)
That's why I asked the question. Though some doubt me on here, I've been on a similar journey, especially after the last couple of years. Although I could, at a push, live with the EU as it is so would vote Remain if that was the case. But as I've said before, I don't think that'll be an option due to the problems of a two-speed EU, and some in the EU's reluctance for a two-speed EU to happen.
Germany's madness and bullying hasn't helped though ...
Cruz will be crushed in New York - his "New York Values" contempt comment is proving about as popular as an endorsement from Marine Le Pen for Jezza in Labour circles.
Sanders problem is he hasn't been able to break Clinton's lock on the minority vote and that isn't going to happen in New York either.
Agreed, but the black vote in NY is 15%, bigger than the 10% in WI but not enormous. The real Sanders problem there is that it's a closed primary and his strength is among independents.
On third party runs - Sanders certainly won't: the Democrat contest has been relatively polite and he'll congratulate Hillary warmly and settle for some policy pledges, I guess. Trump might - it's very late in the day, too late in some states, but he can run as a write-in candidate even there. But it might have less impact than we think if he reaches the convention as a shambling loser.
That said, we have yet to see the media spotlight really focus on Cruz (and Sanders). After 6 months of watching Trump's every misstep, it's Cruz's turn to stumble.
Hispanics also make up another 17% of the vote in New York State.
My own numbers put Trump in the 1200-1230 range - Right on the cusp. Interestingly Trump and Kasich have been relatively polite to each other .. Can't think why ?? ..
If Trump is 30 short, say, are there enough unbound delegates available in the 1st round who might back him to get him over the line to settle this quickly?
If Trump is just shy then it will be the weeks leading to the convention that will be critical. Will the GOP establishment attempt to deny him in such circumstance? - if so, it'll be a political bloodbath.
The pressure on the swing unbound delegates from all sides to carry Trump over or deny him will be huge. The clear winner will be Clinton.
Sorry, Jack. Accidentally hit the Off Topic button instead of the Quote button.
Given that the choice is now effectively down to Trump or Cruz, I think the Democrats are already the winner from this GOP mess - meaning Hillary, FBI willing.
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
I was too young to vote in 1975 but I think I would have voted 'NO' on the basis of national sovereignty arguments i.e. the Powellite line. That said, when I first became politically active in the 1980s I wasn't a leaver - I thought the EC/EU was a bit irksome and I hated the CAP, but overall I could live with it.
What changed things for me was Delors and then the Maastricht Treaty, at which point it became clear that our EU neighbours were hell bent on creating a Unites States of Europe. I was also sickened by the Major government's dishonest antics over Maastricht.
It seems to be the consensus that ANYONE who has their money in a 'tax haven' (eg Panama) as opposed to a 'low tax jurisdiction' (eg Guernsey) is doing so to hide nefarious activities such as money laundering sanctions busting and tax evasion. There can be NO other reason.
After the Panama revelations anyone with money in such a jurisdiction is now coming under scrutiny. After the Iceland PM the second casualty looks like being the new President of FIFA.
A tiny tip of an extremely fetid iceberg
Oh dear.
As usual you are totally wrong that there is no other reason but something illegal to have such structures. The Panama papers have actually shown that & even with all the fuss about Cameron's father the guardian stress time & time again he did nothing illegal.
Why then use Panama?
Because Panama doesn't tax income outside it's jurisdiction. Hence a Panama fund can have US UK German investors each of whom faces no tax cost apart from what they are required to pay in their domestic market.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
I've no idea of the differences between Guernsey and Panama from a tax perspective. I am sure that there are legitimate reasons for using Panama. But if I were engaged on a project with a counterparty in Panama I'd take a careful second look (just like I would with Liechtenstein, Vaduz or Andorra or Dutch Antilles). If it were the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, BVI or Cayman I assume it was tax planning but not be unduly concerned (provided, of course, it passed my usual KYC, ML and other Onboarding checks)
A version of know your customer was already in use for Cayman banks in 1999. They would not use the fact that I banked with a branch of their bank (for 5 years) in another island as a reference.
Labour is not satisfied with David Cameron’s latest statement. A party source said, in the light of the Telegraph report about Blairmore Holdings (Cameron’s late father’s offshore investment fund) moving to Ireland in 2010, it was not clear whether that was covered by the statement about there being no offshore funds or trusts from which Cameron, his wife and children could benefit in the future.
The party also says Cameron also needs to be more specific about the origins of his savings. John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, made this point in his article in today’s Guardian.
;There are a number of inaccuracies and overstatements in this thread:
1. Trump won 6 delegates not 3 (he won CD-3 and 7)
2. The polling average showed Trump having 34%, he got 35%, so he didn't underperform his polls, his opponent over performed them by 5 points as usual.
3. It is true that 37% of republicans said they will vote Clinton with Trump as the nominee, but the same share said also if Cruz is the nominee.
Overall though it will be difficult now for Trump to amass the required 1237 for him to be the GOP nominee.
If it goes down to California and Indiana he needs at least a 5 point lead in the polls to be assured victory, and a 15 point lead to be assured that he gets the number of delegates required. Indiana is the next state to look out for, Cruz only needs to win there to prevent Trump from being the GOP nominee, if he fails then the next opportunity will be the last one in California.
Overall I think the odds for Trump and Cruz to be the GOP nominee are the same right now, and both have a 0% chance of becoming President.
That is not the view of the tax expert the BBC wheeled out this morning. He was unequivocal-unlike yesterday when he was hesitant-that there can be NO reason other than secrecy for using Panama rather than for example Guernsey which insist on disclosure
And who was this tax expert? Not the egregious Richard Murphy, perhaps? He's no more a tax expert than I'm a marathon runner.
I can't comment on your marathon skills, but Murphy has good credentials as a tax expert - he knows his stuff. He has quite specific (opponents would say extreme) views, not all of which I share, but they're based a good understanding of UK tax law and practice.
What makes you see him as not an expert, other than his inconveniently leftwing views?
He is hugely inconsistent in what he says on different occasions. He seems not to understand EU law when commenting on companies basing themselves in one EU country and providing services/goods to others. He gets confused between taxing turnover and profits and between single country reporting and worldwide profits. He makes assumptions which are not borne out by the facts.
He is not a tax expert at all. He is an ordinary accountant with no particular expertise, who gets airtime as a talking head, that's all. It is very easy to pull apart his arguments - and plenty of people who are tax experts have done so.
Mr Murphy is of course a man with his own version of principles who used to (and may still) run a business from his home without paying business rates.
He has also criticised others for setting up a company to receive fees on the basis that this reduces the government's tax revenues while doing exactly the same thing himself. He sounds plausible and the BBC interviewers don't have the wit to question him effectively. I wouldn't rely on a word he says.
There are plenty of people who know their stuff who could be asked to comment on matters such as this. Journalists are lazy, though, and just go to the same old people again and again, regardless, partly because they will get good - usually sensational - copy and sound bites. It is best to think of these programmes - even news ones - as mainly entertainment rather than serious factual programming.
Thanks for all the answers to my questions. They are a small but interesting range of replies.
I was relatively happy post Maastricht. We had the opt out on the Social Charter, our rebate, and access to a large relatively harmonized market. While the Bonn-Paris axis was stronger then than the Berlin-Paris one is now, it was also more balanced, enabling Britain to influence it.
Now with Merkel dominant and every greater powers being assumed by Brussels with no opt outs for the UK, and with British views not aligned with those of France, it is evident we have bugger all influence on real decision-making within the EU. Meanwhile, while still important, the relative importance, and relative future prospects of the EU economy are waning.
Being the spouse who is seen as nothing more than a cheque book, and being despised for complaining about that, is not a good relationship to stay in.
PS PS For me creating the Euro before political union was, even at the time, self-evidently a huge mistake. The adverse effects on the periphery and the net transfers from it to Germany were inevitably going to create social and political tensions. My turning point really came with the incompetent handling of the Greek crisis and the clarity that demonstrated that Berlin has overtaken Brussels as the centre of decision-making.
Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
In the end, elites always get taken down. new ones appear and then they get wiped out. It is the circle of life.
True but in England we have been remarkably stable compared to most places and I doubt that will change. There are families that were extremely wealthy at the time of the Conquest and who are still extremely wealthy (much, if not most, of West Sussex is still owned by two of them). There are other families with what one might call extreme wealth (when measured against the common herd) who became wealthy later, in the 17th or 18th century and who have maintained that position - a scion of one of them is posting on here. Revolutions, wars, death duties, even having multiple heads of family executed for treason, have not affected their position.
What has changed? Probably in our lifetime some of those with extreme wealth have become much more open at flaunting it and much less caring about the responsibilities to others and the Nation that go with that wealth. Maybe it is that vulgarity and the loss of the culture of noblesse oblige that are the problem rather than the actual wealth inequality.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
Yes it is, just in a different way, the birthrate has fallen to unsustainable levels (Japan also suffers from this).
I also wouldn't want to take Scandinavia as an example for very much, their society is completely and utterly buggered and they have a massive demographics timebomb.
He has also criticised others for setting up a company to receive fees on the basis that this reduces the government's tax revenues while doing exactly the same thing himself. He sounds plausible and the BBC interviewers don't have the wit to question him effectively. I wouldn't rely on a word he says.
There are plenty of people who know their stuff who could be asked to comment on matters such as this. Journalists are lazy, though, and just go to the same old people again and again, regardless, partly because they will get good - usually sensational - copy and sound bites. It is best to think of these programmes - even news ones - as mainly entertainment rather than serious factual programming.
e.g. Mo Ansar....a total fraud, but no journo knows enough or could be bothered to really check out if what he said was true or not, or if he was just a former bank clerk with no formal religious training...
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
The direction of the main block of the Eurozone EU which we want to opt out of - it will leave us semi detached.
Further integration is going to happen - quite rightly to make the EZ work. I think it is incoherent to be a member but be outside the core objectives of the EU. We will be the carbuncle on the side of the EZ block.
Long term there are no examples of multiple nations with indigenous populations successfully forming a single state, without one or some of these: democratic deficit, dictatorship, genocide, the rule of fear or disintegration through violent conflict.
The cultures of the EU are too different to accommodate simple standardisation. This makes majority decision making slow in a world where decisions need to be made faster.
As an oldie I appreciated the EEC trading block and am not enamored by the political union. The current EU offers a lot of advantages but there are an equal number of disadvantages. For my business the EU works well for Intellectual Property, but that is still accessible if we leave the EU.
My preferred options are leave, join fully with Euro shengen etc with the worst option of maintaining the status quo of half in and half out.
Before the New Year I hadn't thought much about our membership, I would have been undecided then, following comment and thoughts here adding my own interpretation and experiences has led me to move to be medium firm out.
The advantages of remain are over hyped, the dangers of leave are over hyped. The challenges for the country will be large, regardless of the choice we make.
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
(Snip)
That's why I asked the question. Though some doubt me on here, I've been on a similar journey, especially after the last couple of years. Although I could, at a push, live with the EU as it is so would vote Remain if that was the case. But as I've said before, I don't think that'll be an option due to the problems of a two-speed EU, and some in the EU's reluctance for a two-speed EU to happen.
Germany's madness and bullying hasn't helped though ...
It's not a view I share (and I really mean that) but I've been surprised at how frequently I've heard the view so far during this campaign that Germany are out to achieve domination of the EU, and will succeed in a way they have failed to do previously using other means.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
It was here in the 70's and in France few years ago when we rolled out those red carpets in London.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
Yes it is, just in a different way, the birthrate has fallen to unsustainable levels (Japan also suffers from this).
I also wouldn't want to take Scandinavia as an example for very much, their society is completely and utterly buggered and they have a massive demographics timebomb.
"Different way" in the sense that they don't work less or go overseas because they pay high taxes :-)
Their demographic time bomb has little to do with tax levels.
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.
The hatred that so many Leavers can muster for the EU - as opposed to the militarist authoritarianism of Russia, the carnage in Syria or the desperate hardship faced by hundreds of millions on a daily basis - is quite astonishing. Equally, the energy that so many spend so much time on a cause of decades for something so second order is breathtaking.
It's like devoting your entire life to making an exact 1:10 scale model of Westminster Abbey, correct in every detail, out of Red Leicester.
I may be naïve, but I find it pretty hard to believe that Dave and George would make the statements they have about morality and tax, and avoidance, if they were benefiting from the kinds of arrangements that they have so vocally criticised. I just don't think they are that venal or, frankly, stupid.
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
I've always assumed that places like Panama are for people who are systematically stripping the wealth of their country, or hiding vast earnings from their drugs empires, or facilitating payments for arms shipments, rather than trying to find a way to stop HMRC taking 45% as PAYE. But I may be naïve....
So which category does Cameron Senior fall in to?
A reverse Mark Thatcher ;p
Greedy grasping no morals Tory SNP category
Fixed it for you.....
I doubt you will find any SNP using tax havens to evade paying tax, you will get plenty of Tories though. Of course they will insist it is legal and use weaselly statements like tax avoidance and tax planning to justify it , rather than just admit they are crooks.
If one looks back at the pernicious income tax rates of the 1960s, 1970s and into the early 1980s it will be a wonder how people that went to a public school were funded in that time unless they sacrificed (down sized) their family home. This does not just apply to Conservatives but also to Blair, Balls etc.
I'd never thought of that. Income put in trust for education by grandparents (which is of course a form of tax avoidance) might be one explanation. Also of course quite a lot of schools at that time had a payment according to means structure which now seems to have been lost.*That may have helped. Also some schools give discounts to the children of alumni and charge wealthy (overseas) students more to maintain their income levels.
*I remember well satirist John Farmham's wonderfully dry comment on that system: 'The joke was that this was more socialist in practice than the comprehensive system, which still failed to give poorer children the same chances as their wealthier peers.'
At risk of sounding like a paranoid leaver, if it wasn't for this wonderful website I would have no idea that the Dutch were voting on the EU's proposed deal on Ukraine.
Apart from general dislike of the EU, what is the objection to the Ukraine treaty?
Ukraine seems to be an ally worth cultivating, rather than leaving to the Putinists.
I would be interested in the Leavers attitude to the EU for the 20 years prior to our membership. Did they think that a constructive time?
It has nothing to do with a dislike of the EU and everything to do with enflaming the situation in Ukraine and making it even worse than it is now. EU involvement in the Ukraine has not been a record of success.
Comments
Thanks for the post on your meeting. The results you report are similar to the views and split that I meet from that well known representative sample, The Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association. Though we probably have a smaller proportion of undecideds.
Assuming our samples are in anyway representative, the interesting thing seems to me that the general consensus on here that the ABs will be strongly for remain may well be wrong.
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?
For me the real story from the Panama Papers is that it shines a light on a super wealthy elite who are more interested in ensuring money they can never hope to spend is hidden away than they are in seeing it used to help people who might benefit from it. The idea that there is no money left has now been killed. And the super rich may find they have to spend a little more in the future to keep their vast wealth sitting in places where no-one - including them - can ever get a hold of it. In the end, their greed will destroy them. Vast wealth inequality is not sustainable.
Mr. Jessop, bit difficult to say as I've not been into politics for nearly as long as most here, and have little interest in modern history.
Whilst there are specific issues, the main underlying problem for me is that the EU is on a path of ever closer union, and if it says otherwise I frankly don't believe it. Accountability demands that we be able to hire and fire out government, but we can't do that with the EU.
So, for me, the tipping points were probably the end of Communism, then followed by our ejection from the ERM. That convinced me that currency unions were a stupid idea, and that the Euro would be a stupid idea. The Euro has indeed proved to be a stupid idea. They pushed me in a strongly Eurosceptic direction, even if it not towards necessarily supporting Leave.
I can't think of any single thing that has made me say "that's it", after 1992, more the general direction of travel. Powers are always transferred away from national institutions towards EU institutions, never in the other direction.
What makes you see him as not an expert, other than his inconveniently leftwing views?
However, we are talking here about two small groups each with a different and unusual common characteristic, your are all party members mine are all men with one or more long term ailments or medical conditions. So, straws in the wind, nothing more.
But, when Cameron's father died, Cameron had been a leading politician for a number of years. Given past politicians problems with money, shares, interests, that they made sure everything was as simple as possible. Even in the will, Cameron was left only a modest sum compared to the other relatives and his brother / sisters had previously been given the houses etc.
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Business_Taxation/Docs/Publications/Reports/TaxGap_3_12_12.pdf
If you need to hide 20 billion you've collected from the plebs during your time as dictator Panama is more your place.
BVI and Panama look like the Real Madrid/Barca of the tax dodging world to me
I'm still unsure about this. I commented last night that Cameron's (3rd?) statement was either very cleverly and carefully advised in order to try and shut down the matter while not lying about offshore arrangements that he in fact benefited from; or it was poorly advised because it made him look shifty when he had nothing to hide. I still find it hard to believe option 2: the no. 10 spin machine is nowhere near the best we've seen, but that's a silly mistake to make.
I agree with you that neither of them is especially venal or stupid, and they've been careful in general to make sure they are as "clean" as possible in order to prioritise political sense - I mean that as a compliment, it's evidence that they are in politics to do (what they believe to be) good rather than line their own pockets. But the problem is that avoidance is a grey area and the perception shifts, and it's easy to believe that one's own offshore fund is "just what all the good chaps have", unlike say the Dutch mixer holding structure of a multinational that's "engaged in immoral tax avoidance". Bob Diamond's appearance before the select committee following the Barclays Capital blow up was a masterpiece in failing to spot the perception shift that had begun, for example. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was today caught in his party’s growing anti-Semitism storm after directing people to a website that has carried “tributes” to suicide bombers.
Labour MPs reacted with fury after learning that in 2014 Mr McDonnell linked from his own web page to the site, which once carried sympathetic articles about at least two bombers.
One of the pieces focused on a man who murdered 19 Israelis outside a nightclub.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mcdonnell-in-antisemitism-row-over-website-that-has-carried-tributes-to-suicide-bombers-a3219156.html
A couple of questions for firm leavers:
Looking back over the last forty years, is there a time when there was a relationship between the EU and the UK that you were happy with? E.g. never, or before Lisbon. Also, was there a single event, regulation or power transfer that made you decide the disadvantages of membership outweighed the advantages?'
Yes, in the first 15 / 20 years years when it was a trading block of countries with similar GDP's
As the EEC morphed into the EC I became wary but what tipped me over the edge was Mastricht. So much that has happened since has made me more and more convinced that the UK would be a better place outside.
I've not looked at this for 5 years or so but I seem to remember that if you sum all of the "savings" from "closing loopholes" claimed by Chancellors from Brown onwards you get a significantly larger number than the "tax gap" that each of those Chancellors at that time insisted was overstated. Fundamentally nobody really knows, because of the number of assumptions about behavioural change that you have to include in the model of the impact of changing the law.
Perhaps I have been listening to too many phone-in programmes but it is not a certainty that the Tories will win the next GE, there is definitely a shift going on despite of Jeremy Corbyn.
There are likely to be a lot of shy Leavers given the unpopularity of that view in right-on sections of society, and its associations with fruitcakery, lots of nice people won't say they are leavers because their friends will assume they are a kipper
There is so many ways their sample could be hideously unrepresentative given the important demographics, ABs tend to be out at work for long hours, old people tend not to answer the phone or be on online panels.
There are likely to be a lot of people who are DK or DNV who haven't thought about the issue much and could go either way, or indeed stay at home.
There is a massive possibility that "events" could transform the argument almost overnight, with a big happening on migrants, terrorism or possibly EU/ECJ idiocy.
Dave could pull it around for remain or overplay his hand and turn hordes of voters off, from many comments I have heard he is on the cusp at the moment and it could go either way. Conversely Farage could invite someone even more idiotic than Galloway to speak for Leave.
Even the Guardian have just printed basically well even if Cameron did benefit in the past from his father's planning, that isn't a decision by Cameron that he had any control over.
For example there could be minors (under 18) trusts created through Wills of people leaving money to them or to adults but if they do not survive then their childreen etc.
I intend to vote Remain.
The country will never elect as PM someone perceived to be a terrorist sympathiser.
I don't think anybody can say hand on heart, I know all the financial ins and outs of every close family member and they once gave me a car or a birthday gift / wedding gift etc and they could have been tax efficient on something and thus technically I benefited.
If Cameron is being honest and its salary, some savings and his house(s) [Staines thinks he still owns the one in Oxfordshire). Not sure how much "cleaner" he could be on this matter that is within his own control. I have to say I am shocked he doesn't have shares / other investments etc, at least in a blind trust.
Ukraine seems to be an ally worth cultivating, rather than leaving to the Putinists.
@JJ
I would be interested in the Leavers attitude to the EU for the 20 years prior to our membership. Did they think that a constructive time?
More recently the big problem for me is that subsidiarity was and is a lie. There has been no return of decision making competence to the countries as was promised, and the movement has all be in the other direction. This is particularly bad because it was the basis on which Maastricht was sold to us.
Finally as I have started to look closer into things, my big bugbear is the ECJ, a collection of politically appointed judges, with what could charitably be described as varying legal experience, some of whom where not even judges before being appointed to the ECJ, who have proved incapable of giving ruling which are even consistent with their own prior rulings, and feel empowered to ride roughshod over international agreements, decisions made by the (democratic) Council of Europe, and even rulings by the UN Security Council!
I was pro-single market, but anti-euro in the 1998-2003 period, and felt Hague's line of "In Europe, not Run by Europe" made sense. I voted for IDS, to rule it out for good, and because I felt Clarke would split the party.
By the time the EU constitution came round in 2004-2005 (which I campaigned on for a referendum) the penny finally dropped, and I moved off the fence and became a sympathetic Outter at that time. Issues with immigration and integration afterwards put me off my previous view that Eastern Europe states would act as a counterweight to France/Germany and take the EU in a different direction with the UK as an ally. I was pro expansion before.
Last chance saloon for me was dodging the Lisbon Treaty but that didn't happen.
He is not a tax expert at all. He is an ordinary accountant with no particular expertise, who gets airtime as a talking head, that's all. It is very easy to pull apart his arguments - and plenty of people who are tax experts have done so.
It's really quite striking that every attempt to legislate the wealthy man and woman out of existence has failed.
However I was still persuaded for Remain as I thought the Tory leadership wouldn't ever advocate such things. Then we had Merkelypse.
It's demonstrated to me without doubt that all the little examples re loss of sovereignty do add up and our country is slipping through our fingers. Cameron's negotiations haven't yielded a step back from this. He didn't deliver on his previous big words. He's in the same camp as New Labour. I didn't expect that. More fool me.
Capital allowances are a relevant consideration in the discussion. Their use in tax-efficient P&M leasing for example is a big avoidance opportunity, it's been cat-and-mouse at least since the quarter-end company changes in the 90s. Not sure about the reference to regional aid; and the relationship between taxation and incentive is a massively complicated area. A lot of more right-wing analysis is premised on the idea that if you tax a behaviour more highly there's always an alternative behaviour which will benefit, but there's lots of evidence to the contrary - the New Jersey state tax hike is one example that's relevant; as is the willingness of lots of rich people to live in NYC despite paying some of the highest direct tax rates in the West.
Turnout is expected to be low (most people aren't really focused on the Ukraine and it's raining) and it's consultative, but the Government is likely to ask the EU to have another think and try to redraft some aspects not yet implemented. It's part of a new Dutch system allowing referenda if 300,000 ask for them.
Now with Merkel dominant and every greater powers being assumed by Brussels with no opt outs for the UK, and with British views not aligned with those of France, it is evident we have bugger all influence on real decision-making within the EU. Meanwhile, while still important, the relative importance, and relative future prospects of the EU economy are waning.
Being the spouse who is seen as nothing more than a cheque book, and being despised for complaining about that, is not a good relationship to stay in.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
Panama used to be quite innovative with one or two legal structures that were well suited to asset protection in a multi-generational context, but I think Guernsey then copied their foundation company model which eliminated that particular advantage. Not sure if it ultimately saw that much take-up.
Germany's madness and bullying hasn't helped though ...
Given that the choice is now effectively down to Trump or Cruz, I think the Democrats are already the winner from this GOP mess - meaning Hillary, FBI willing.
I was too young to vote in 1975 but I think I would have voted 'NO' on the basis of national sovereignty arguments i.e. the Powellite line. That said, when I first became politically active in the 1980s I wasn't a leaver - I thought the EC/EU was a bit irksome and I hated the CAP, but overall I could live with it.
What changed things for me was Delors and then the Maastricht Treaty, at which point it became clear that our EU neighbours were hell bent on creating a Unites States of Europe. I was also sickened by the Major government's dishonest antics over Maastricht.
1. Trump won 6 delegates not 3 (he won CD-3 and 7)
2. The polling average showed Trump having 34%, he got 35%, so he didn't underperform his polls, his opponent over performed them by 5 points as usual.
3. It is true that 37% of republicans said they will vote Clinton with Trump as the nominee, but the same share said also if Cruz is the nominee.
Overall though it will be difficult now for Trump to amass the required 1237 for him to be the GOP nominee.
If it goes down to California and Indiana he needs at least a 5 point lead in the polls to be assured victory, and a 15 point lead to be assured that he gets the number of delegates required.
Indiana is the next state to look out for, Cruz only needs to win there to prevent Trump from being the GOP nominee, if he fails then the next opportunity will be the last one in California.
Overall I think the odds for Trump and Cruz to be the GOP nominee are the same right now, and both have a 0% chance of becoming President.
There are plenty of people who know their stuff who could be asked to comment on matters such as this. Journalists are lazy, though, and just go to the same old people again and again, regardless, partly because they will get good - usually sensational - copy and sound bites. It is best to think of these programmes - even news ones - as mainly entertainment rather than serious factual programming.
What has changed? Probably in our lifetime some of those with extreme wealth have become much more open at flaunting it and much less caring about the responsibilities to others and the Nation that go with that wealth. Maybe it is that vulgarity and the loss of the culture of noblesse oblige that are the problem rather than the actual wealth inequality.
I also wouldn't want to take Scandinavia as an example for very much, their society is completely and utterly buggered and they have a massive demographics timebomb.
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2014/05/04/the-truth-about-mo-ansar
Further integration is going to happen - quite rightly to make the EZ work. I think it is incoherent to be a member but be outside the core objectives of the EU. We will be the carbuncle on the side of the EZ block.
Long term there are no examples of multiple nations with indigenous populations successfully forming a single state, without one or some of these: democratic deficit, dictatorship, genocide, the rule of fear or disintegration through violent conflict.
The cultures of the EU are too different to accommodate simple standardisation. This makes majority decision making slow in a world where decisions need to be made faster.
As an oldie I appreciated the EEC trading block and am not enamored by the political union. The current EU offers a lot of advantages but there are an equal number of disadvantages. For my business the EU works well for Intellectual Property, but that is still accessible if we leave the EU.
My preferred options are leave, join fully with Euro shengen etc with the worst option of maintaining the status quo of half in and half out.
Before the New Year I hadn't thought much about our membership, I would have been undecided then, following comment and thoughts here adding my own interpretation and experiences has led me to move to be medium firm out.
The advantages of remain are over hyped, the dangers of leave are over hyped. The challenges for the country will be large, regardless of the choice we make.
And that's from both Remainers and Leavers.
I know its RT, but even so:
https://www.rt.com/news/brain-drain-britain-immigration-546/
Their demographic time bomb has little to do with tax levels.
The hatred that so many Leavers can muster for the EU - as opposed to the militarist authoritarianism of Russia, the carnage in Syria or the desperate hardship faced by hundreds of millions on a daily basis - is quite astonishing. Equally, the energy that so many spend so much time on a cause of decades for something so second order is breathtaking.
It's like devoting your entire life to making an exact 1:10 scale model of Westminster Abbey, correct in every detail, out of Red Leicester.
*I remember well satirist John Farmham's wonderfully dry comment on that system: 'The joke was that this was more socialist in practice than the comprehensive system, which still failed to give poorer children the same chances as their wealthier peers.'