Panama Papers: biggest leak in history published by German newspaper

[Mosha]

Now FIFA is back in the new for the wrong reasons.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[Naam]

One can list many similar concepts, and their "legality" -- but none of them are morally justifiable. The fact that a law exists does not make it "right". Laws exist for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men - (quote) and a wise man understands the moral obligation in creating wealth. Money is not a passport to wisdom and happiness. Enlightenment comes from living a moral life - not from the unsolicited teachings of a materialist.

Examples of the morality (or lack of it) are highlighted by the howls of protest when Starbucks/Google/etc were exposed for paying virtually no tax in EU/UK -- all perfectly legal, all worked out by bean counters and lawyers -- but the public outrage exposed the iniquitous lack of morality in such "legal" schemes. Their wrath was directed at the companies, but it might have been better used against the inept law-makers.

This is not a direct comparison of corporate tax structuring versus personal investment and taxation so don't start throwing apples and pears at me, but it *is* a classic example of immoral laws allowing immoral activity.

big corporate business does not and has never cared for morality. fact is that nowadays politicians / lawmakers are more than ever dancing to the tunes and move according to the strings pulled by globally acting puppet masters. the 2008 crisis and its aftermath are perfect examples for my claim.

Take the example of BP and the compensation they are paying for the Gulf of Mexico spill. They have bent over backwards to comply with all the cases, many of them spurious, and have earmarked losses to reflect this. The reality is that they have taken the corporate moral high ground.

nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, no alternative. if i damage your car and hurt you in a traffic accident, pay for the repair and your hospital bill, apologise and send flowers to the ICU do i take the moral high ground?

[Naam]

The hypocrisy results from the US demanding other countries to provide information on accounts held by US citizens worldwide, whereas if say a Chinese would hold 1 billion dollars in Delaware, his privacy would be protected.

Provide a warrant or court order and just watch how little protection account holders have, Americans included.

the OECD resolution concerning automatic information exchange from banks to tax authorities does not require a court order. take a wild guess which country did not and will not ratify that resolution.

yes, LRB... that country is the U.S. of A.

[lannarebirth]

The hypocrisy results from the US demanding other countries to provide information on accounts held by US citizens worldwide, whereas if say a Chinese would hold 1 billion dollars in Delaware, his privacy would be protected.

Provide a warrant or court order and just watch how little protection account holders have, Americans included.

the OECD resolution concerning automatic information exchange from banks to tax authorities does not require a court order. take a wild guess which country did not and will not ratify that resolution.

yes, LRB... that country is the U.S. of A.

Being naturally wary of government overreach, I'm not so sure I'd favor that resolution myself. I'm not sure I've opened any new accounts since those measures came into being.

[Naam]

The hypocrisy results from the US demanding other countries to provide information on accounts held by US citizens worldwide, whereas if say a Chinese would hold 1 billion dollars in Delaware, his privacy would be protected.

that's [partly] correct but the anonymity applies only to shareholders / beneficiaries and assets which do not generate yield and not to "accounts".

one has to differentiate! a corporation, whether onshore or offshore, can only keep book of its assets but cash, yield generating shares, bonds or other fungible assets require an account with a bank or any other financial institution. anonymous bank accounts are a thing of the past. globally all banks and financial institutions require nowadays that the beneficaries "let their pants down". in short... actual persons must be named as beneficiaries of a corporation except if said corporation is traded publicly.

the hypocrisy of course remains because the U.S. demands automatic information from banks when it concerns its own citizens or foreigners who are liable to pay U.S. taxes and that without reciprocation.

[Srikcir]

The hypocrisy results from the US demanding other countries to provide information on accounts held by US citizens worldwide, whereas if say a Chinese would hold 1 billion dollars in Delaware, his privacy would be protected.

Provide a warrant or court order and just watch how little protection account holders have, Americans included.

the OECD resolution concerning automatic information exchange from banks to tax authorities does not require a court order. take a wild guess which country did not and will not ratify that resolution.

yes, LRB... that country is the U.S. of A.

which country did not and will not ratify that resolution

It's complicated.

The USA is one of the 20 founding nations of the OECD established in 1961. On 06/05/2014 all 34 OECD member countries endorsed the Declaration on Automatic Exchange of Information in Tax Matters. However, to be enforceable each country must individually ratify the program.

In November 2015 the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved with backing by President Obama ratification of the Protocol Amending the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters and forwarded to the Republican dominated Senate for approval. The Republican Senators have been to date reluctant to ratify the protocol, especially in a presidential election year.

Note that this protocol is an amendment to the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, which was ratified in 1991 and is currently in place. The US Department of the Treasury is authorized to share information requested by a foreign government about an individual but open only to members of the OECD or the Council of Europe. The amended convention would include many more nations including the Chinese, Russian, and Colombian administrations.

[Naam]

The US Department of the Treasury is authorized to share information requested by a foreign government about an individual...

...but demands from banks and financial institutions detailed information via "Form 1099" for each and every transaction without any specific request.

one should also look at reality. assuming the Swiss Government requests information pertaining to its citizen Jean-Claude Hürlimann and his financial assets in the U.S. will the Department of the Treasury conduct a research and check a zillion U.S. banks whether Herr Hürlimann is banking in the U.S. and what assets he holds?

[jayboy]

The Government of Iceland is being dissolved. .

The prime minister of Iceland has asked the president to dissolve parliament after allegations he concealed millions of dollars worth of investments in an offshore company.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35966412

Good job on the Icelandic citizens to come out in force yesterday.

I saw earlier that David Cameron said he's family's tax matters are a "private matter". I hope any British working class person who gets caught taking cash in hand work also says "It's a private matter".

Fairly incoherent post since David Cameron is not guilty of any financial misdemeanour.He has also confirmed he has no investments at all apart from his house and his savings.

His great crime I suspect in the eyes of some of the forum British expatriates is that he is an "easy in his own skin" unashamed toff with high intelligence and social poise.Strangely these expats often grovel before the Thai equivalent of David Cameron's background - but don't see the irony of doing so.They can't help loathing the English upper class.

Nothing incoherent in Schondie's post - I can understand it perfectly well. On the other hand your lack of punctuation does leave your rejoinder somewhat lacking, but I get your point.

Cameron has been shown to be a liar on many occasions. He has constantly lied about the UK economy - I see no reason to believe what he is saying now.

If he truly has nothing to hide, then he'll have no hesitation in making his tax affairs public.

Bleeding toffs, innit.

[MrTee]

Fairly incoherent post since David Cameron is not guilty of any financial misdemeanour.He has also confirmed he has no investments at all apart from his house and his savings.

His great crime I suspect in the eyes of some of the forum British expatriates is that he is an "easy in his own skin" unashamed toff with high intelligence and social poise.Strangely these expats often grovel before the Thai equivalent of David Cameron's background - but don't see the irony of doing so.They can't help loathing the English upper class.

Nothing incoherent in Schondie's post - I can understand it perfectly well. On the other hand your lack of punctuation does leave your rejoinder somewhat lacking, but I get your point.

Cameron has been shown to be a liar on many occasions. He has constantly lied about the UK economy - I see no reason to believe what he is saying now.

If he truly has nothing to hide, then he'll have no hesitation in making his tax affairs public.

Bleeding toffs, innit.

Nothing to do with Toff-ism, some of my best friends are so called toffs

It's about being open and honest.. We have a couple of snollygosters running the UK government, they continually lie to the British public.

One one hand we have Gideon Osborne, the chap that was going to pay off the UK's debt by taxing Gregg's warm Pasties, who instead tripled the UK 's debt while also creating the worst current account deficit on record. He will stand up in Parliament and say he has the built fastest growing economy in the world - nothing could be further from the truth! All the while his family's business (Osborne & Little), which he is direct beneficiary, havn't paid tax in over 7 years!

"The family business – paid out dividends worth £335,000 to shareholders, including the Chancellor, on 30 May 2014. Mr Osborne's parents, Sir Peter and Lady Felicity Osborne, reportedly received dividend pay-outs of over £270,000. The company, however, has reportedly not paid UK corporation tax since 2008, partly due to the business rolling over losses from previous years and deferring tax payments."

There is evidence to suggest that Osborne & Little have been profiting from off-shores accounts. It'll come out in the wash. Mark my words!

Then we have the weasel Cameron who had 3 goes at answering a simple question about benefiting from off-shore accounts, and yet still no one believes him.

That he is married Samatha Sheffield\Cameron is the closest he gets to "toff".

There are many choice words I'd call the porcine-fancier, but toff isn't one of them.

"All innit together" they chant as they cut benefits for the disabled - the disabled!

That you think Cameron or Osborne are toffs is rather telling.. They act and appear rather like low class greedy conmen, not unlike second-hand car dealers, but probably more BMW than Ford Capri - I'll give you that!

Zac Goldsmith, another one! who after getting caught out abusing tax with is non-dom status eventually came clean and published his tax affairs. Cameron, and Osborne should both do the same!

I've talked to Zac a few times and for someone that had great potential I feel he has let himself down. Power corrupts the mind!

[jayboy]

Fairly incoherent post since David Cameron is not guilty of any financial misdemeanour.He has also confirmed he has no investments at all apart from his house and his savings.

His great crime I suspect in the eyes of some of the forum British expatriates is that he is an "easy in his own skin" unashamed toff with high intelligence and social poise.Strangely these expats often grovel before the Thai equivalent of David Cameron's background - but don't see the irony of doing so.They can't help loathing the English upper class.

Nothing incoherent in Schondie's post - I can understand it perfectly well. On the other hand your lack of punctuation does leave your rejoinder somewhat lacking, but I get your point.

Cameron has been shown to be a liar on many occasions. He has constantly lied about the UK economy - I see no reason to believe what he is saying now.

If he truly has nothing to hide, then he'll have no hesitation in making his tax affairs public.

Bleeding toffs, innit.

Nothing to do with Toff-ism, some of my best friends are so called toffs

It's about being open and honest.. We have a couple of snollygosters running the UK government, they continually lie to the British public.

One one hand we have Gideon Osborne, the chap that was going to pay off the UK's debt by taxing Gregg's warm Pasties, who instead tripled the UK 's debt while also creating the worst current account deficit on record. He will stand up in Parliament and say he has the built fastest growing economy in the world - nothing could be further from the truth! All the while his family's business (Osborne & Little), which he is direct beneficiary, havn't paid tax in over 7 years!

"The family business – paid out dividends worth £335,000 to shareholders, including the Chancellor, on 30 May 2014. Mr Osborne's parents, Sir Peter and Lady Felicity Osborne, reportedly received dividend pay-outs of over £270,000. The company, however, has reportedly not paid UK corporation tax since 2008, partly due to the business rolling over losses from previous years and deferring tax payments."

There is evidence to suggest that Osborne & Little have been profiting from off-shores accounts. It'll come out in the wash. Mark my words!

Then we have the weasel Cameron who had 3 goes at answering a simple question about benefiting from off-shore accounts, and yet still no one believes him.

That he is married Samatha Sheffield\Cameron is the closest he gets to "toff".

There are many choice words I'd call the porcine-fancier, but toff isn't one of them.

"All innit together" they chant as they cut benefits for the disabled - the disabled!

That you think Cameron or Osborne are toffs is rather telling.. They act and appear rather like low class greedy conmen, not unlike second-hand car dealers, but probably more BMW than Ford Capri - I'll give you that!

Zac Goldsmith, another one! who after getting caught out abusing tax with is non-dom status eventually came clean and published his tax affairs. Cameron, and Osborne should both do the same!

I've talked to Zac a few times and for someone that had great potential I feel he has let himself down. Power corrupts the mind!

Toff is a class marker not one of character.It does not mean 'gentleman" although a toff can be a gentleman.David,Gideon and Zac are all toffs.I make no comment on their gentlemanly qualities if any

It is no crime to be rich nor to use offshore centres (if within the law in respect of the latter).

Opinions differ on Osborne's record as Chancellor.Many economists would completely disagree with your summary.Your shock horror comment on rolling over losses shows I fear you don't understand UK tax law.it's common to sneer at the distinction beteween tax avoidance and tax evasion = but the distinction is crucial, the former being legal and the latter illegal.Nobody and no company needs to pay more tax than is legally due.Those who want to pay more than is legally due will I'm sure have their offerings gratefully received.

You do realise the pig incident is a lie? Some people seem to think they just have to say 'porcine' ,'Tory' , and 'offshore' in the same sentence to make a compelling case.

If evidence emerges that Cameron or Osborne have acted illegally I will gladly join you in condemnation.I agree Cameron has a big PR problem on his hands.

None of your comments suggest to me that you are not profoundly affected by the usual hatred of the British lower middle class for toffs.

[jayboy]

And to see a balanced account of Cameron's position -

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/panama-papers-what-do-they-say-what-does-cameron-say-and-should-i-be-outraged-a6971216.html

[lkv]

The hypocrisy results from the US demanding other countries to provide information on accounts held by US citizens worldwide, whereas if say a Chinese would hold 1 billion dollars in Delaware, his privacy would be protected.

that's [partly] correct but the anonymity applies only to shareholders / beneficiaries and assets which do not generate yield and not to "accounts".

one has to differentiate! a corporation, whether onshore or offshore, can only keep book of its assets but cash, yield generating shares, bonds or other fungible assets require an account with a bank or any other financial institution. anonymous bank accounts are a thing of the past. globally all banks and financial institutions require nowadays that the beneficaries "let their pants down". in short... actual persons must be named as beneficiaries of a corporation except if said corporation is traded publicly.

the hypocrisy of course remains because the U.S. demands automatic information from banks when it concerns its own citizens or foreigners who are liable to pay U.S. taxes and that without reciprocation.

I think these journalists are reading Thai Visa forum lol. This is as recent as 7 hours ago.

Apparently, it's easier to open a shell company in the US than getting a library card

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/06/panama-papers-us-tax-havens-delaware

[jpinx]

These leaks always bring the scum to the surface. Cameron and others still have not published their tax returns, a mark of them having something to hide, even if it is just their poverty.

Delaware obviously spotted a "gap in the market" and have cornered the shell company stakes.

The main problem appears to be that the people who make the rules are amongst the ones who benefit from a certain "easiness" in their formulation. It also means that they understand the machinations of the "small print" better than anyone. Individual countries are loathe to tighten up for fear of losing investors, and the result is that the whole offshore finance industry descends into the murky gloom that we are now peering into.

[Naam]

The hypocrisy results from the US demanding other countries to provide information on accounts held by US citizens worldwide, whereas if say a Chinese would hold 1 billion dollars in Delaware, his privacy would be protected.

that's [partly] correct but the anonymity applies only to shareholders / beneficiaries and assets which do not generate yield and not to "accounts".

one has to differentiate! a corporation, whether onshore or offshore, can only keep book of its assets but cash, yield generating shares, bonds or other fungible assets require an account with a bank or any other financial institution. anonymous bank accounts are a thing of the past. globally all banks and financial institutions require nowadays that the beneficaries "let their pants down". in short... actual persons must be named as beneficiaries of a corporation except if said corporation is traded publicly.

the hypocrisy of course remains because the U.S. demands automatic information from banks when it concerns its own citizens or foreigners who are liable to pay U.S. taxes and that without reciprocation.

I think these journalists are reading Thai Visa forum lol. This is as recent as 7 hours ago.

Apparently, it's easier to open a shell company in the US than getting a library card

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/06/panama-papers-us-tax-havens-delaware

in Connecticut you can establish a corporation online!

[craigt3365]

I setup mine online and via mail. Needed the mail for a few notarized documents. With that being said, as a US citizen, I was still responsible for any associated taxes, though these were minimized via the corporation. Seems as a foreigner, you can get away with not paying taxes.

[Naam]

I setup mine online and via mail. Needed the mail for a few notarized documents. With that being said, as a US citizen, I was still responsible for any associated taxes, though these were minimized via the corporation. Seems as a foreigner, you can get away with not paying taxes.

once global information exchange is invoked tax "saving" will be only possible when actually residing in low tax or zero tax jurisdictions. e.g. Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia to name just a few countries out of several dozens.

and that irrespective of assets "held" in an offshore corporation.

[craigt3365]

I setup mine online and via mail. Needed the mail for a few notarized documents. With that being said, as a US citizen, I was still responsible for any associated taxes, though these were minimized via the corporation. Seems as a foreigner, you can get away with not paying taxes.

once global information exchange is invoked tax "saving" will be only possible when actually residing in low tax or zero tax jurisdictions. e.g. Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia to name just a few countries out of several dozens.

and that irrespective of assets "held" in an offshore corporation.

Unless you are a American! 5555 The tax man has a looooong arm.

Or maybe a UK citizen soon also....

http://www.wsj.com/articles/panama-papers-raise-pressure-on-u-k-to-rein-in-offshore-tax-havens-1459966548

[keemapoot]

Oops, this is gonna put a damper on the anti-corruption drive going on by top government in China now. I guess what's good for Peking Ducks is not always good for the gander.

Family members of at least eight of China’s current and former top-ranking political leaders appear in the Panama Papers as owners or shareholders of secretive offshore companies, according to reporting and documents published Wednesday by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/06/more-relatives-of-chinas-top-leaders-implicated-in-panama-papers/

[jpinx]

I setup mine online and via mail. Needed the mail for a few notarized documents. With that being said, as a US citizen, I was still responsible for any associated taxes, though these were minimized via the corporation. Seems as a foreigner, you can get away with not paying taxes.

once global information exchange is invoked tax "saving" will be only possible when actually residing in low tax or zero tax jurisdictions. e.g. Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia to name just a few countries out of several dozens.

and that irrespective of assets "held" in an offshore corporation.

Very true - but there are so many different styles of taxation. All countries would have to agree on a tax system on it's residents - born or naturalised. This raises a raft of questions about "What is a resident?". Tax residency bears little or no resemblance to physical residence in many cases. UK will happily tax it's people even if they never set foot in the country - not only income tax, but inheritance and other taxes as well. No wonder the "tax professionals" are so much in demand - and why they support the existance of a myriad of options for someone with a billion burning a hole in their pocket. Transparency will never happen -- even the various governments tax departments don't know what's happening because they rely on the declarations of dodgy dealers. You have to admire the Thai way -- if you look too rich they will investigate

[jayboy]

The economic commentator with perhaps the greatest public credibility in the UK is Robert Peston.Here is what he has to say on his FB page about the Panama Papers and Cameron's Dad involvement.

'The nature of the tax avoidance carried out by Blairmore Holdings, the investment company where David Cameron's father Ian was a director, may have been misunderstood.

There is a widespread presumption, I think, that the incorporation of Blairmore in Panama and its location for operating purposes in the Bahamas somehow meant that its shareholders - including members of the Cameron family - were protected from paying income tax and capital gains tax.

But Blairmore's 2006 prospectus is explicit that is not so. Its British investors were and are liable to income tax on the dividends they receive and capital gains tax on whatever profits they earn when they sell their Blairmore shares (and as far as I can tell they would have been lucky to make profits, since the performance of this small £21m fund has been anything but stellar).

So any Cameron who received income or capital from Blairmore should have paid tax on it.

That said, Blairmore's offshore status does reduce - probably to zero - the tax liabilities of Blairmore itself. Any profits it makes from its investments is not subject to corporation or income tax.

Which many of you may see as scandalous.

But it is worth making three points. As a company incorporated in Panama, the tax would go to the Panamanian taxman - which would do naff all good to our deficit (and Panama as a point of principle doesn't want the tax).

Second the less tax Blairmore pays in Panama, the bigger the dividends it can in theory pay to investors in Britain - who should therefore pay commensurately more tax in the UK.

And finally Blairmore's Panama/Bahamas structure - which latterly became a Panama/Dublin structure - is spectacularly conventional.

There are thousands and thousands of investment funds with near identical offshore structures. I can think of loads of hedge funds, private equity funds and international investment funds with incredibly similar offshore identities.

They are so common that I would be staggered if there were not Labour MPs - among others - who had not at some juncture held investments in funds with similar offshore structures, though they might not have been aware of it.

None of which is to argue that we should approve of the likes of Blairmore legally dodging taxes.

But it is to point out that Blairmore's tax avoidance does not in and of itself prove that Ian Cameron and his family avoided tax'

[jpinx]

The economic commentator with perhaps the greatest public credibility in the UK is Robert Peston.Here is what he has to say on his FB page about the Panama Papers and Cameron's Dad involvement.

'The nature of the tax avoidance carried out by Blairmore Holdings, the investment company where David Cameron's father Ian was a director, may have been misunderstood.

There is a widespread presumption, I think, that the incorporation of Blairmore in Panama and its location for operating purposes in the Bahamas somehow meant that its shareholders - including members of the Cameron family - were protected from paying income tax and capital gains tax.

But Blairmore's 2006 prospectus is explicit that is not so. Its British investors were and are liable to income tax on the dividends they receive and capital gains tax on whatever profits they earn when they sell their Blairmore shares (and as far as I can tell they would have been lucky to make profits, since the performance of this small £21m fund has been anything but stellar).

So any Cameron who received income or capital from Blairmore should have paid tax on it.

That said, Blairmore's offshore status does reduce - probably to zero - the tax liabilities of Blairmore itself. Any profits it makes from its investments is not subject to corporation or income tax.

Which many of you may see as scandalous.

But it is worth making three points. As a company incorporated in Panama, the tax would go to the Panamanian taxman - which would do naff all good to our deficit (and Panama as a point of principle doesn't want the tax).

Second the less tax Blairmore pays in Panama, the bigger the dividends it can in theory pay to investors in Britain - who should therefore pay commensurately more tax in the UK.

And finally Blairmore's Panama/Bahamas structure - which latterly became a Panama/Dublin structure - is spectacularly conventional.

There are thousands and thousands of investment funds with near identical offshore structures. I can think of loads of hedge funds, private equity funds and international investment funds with incredibly similar offshore identities.

They are so common that I would be staggered if there were not Labour MPs - among others - who had not at some juncture held investments in funds with similar offshore structures, though they might not have been aware of it.

None of which is to argue that we should approve of the likes of Blairmore legally dodging taxes.

But it is to point out that Blairmore's tax avoidance does not in and of itself prove that Ian Cameron and his family avoided tax'

Was there not a UK taxman clamp-down on "legal tax avoidance" a few years ago? It begs the question -- bar the semantics of "avoidance" vs "evasion" -- of the morality of not paying for the infrastructure of the country he is living in based on his total wealth. The fact that another country allows him to use it's banking system to park money without paying taxes does not justify his escaping the responsibility to his country of residence - moreso when he is the leader and should be setting a good example.

Robert Preston is an interesting journalist, but he confines himself to the "legal" framework and rarely strays into the moral issues.

[jayboy]

I dont disagree with your general point though the distinction between avoidance and evasion is far more than semantics.It is the vital distinction between what is legal and what is not.There will necessarily be a grey area and of course HMRC will challenge structures where it believes a case can be made - or where the there is a blatant disregard of the spirit of the law.That's what a legal system is meant to do.

I am slightly sceptical of your noble sentiments that we must all contribute to the infrastructure of our countries residence through tax.Of course we must but what we pay is determined by law not some vague moral code.If any upright citizen wants to pay mre than legally required he is free to do so - though of course nobody does.That's why what you call semantics are in fact rather important.

[jpinx]

I dont disagree with your general point though the distinction between avoidance and evasion is far more than semantics.It is the vital distinction between what is legal and what is not.There will necessarily be a grey area and of course HMRC will challenge structures where it believes a case can be made - or where the there is a blatant disregard of the spirit of the law.That's what a legal system is meant to do.

I am slightly sceptical of your noble sentiments that we must all contribute to the infrastructure of our countries residence through tax.Of course we must but what we pay is determined by law not some vague moral code.If any upright citizen wants to pay mre than legally required he is free to do so - though of course nobody does.That's why what you call semantics are in fact rather important.

Agreed, but the fact that there is a grey area large enough to accommodate so much merely highlights the point I made previously about the lawmakers failing to close down the "loopholes". That was the intention of the clampdown, but as you correctly say - it has to go through the slow and complicated process that the law requires before a prosecution is possible. Much more satisfactory would be a revision of the laws, but that is never going to happen because there are far too many public figures with their noses in the trough to allow such laws to be passed. As I said earlier - Iceland's population has repeatedly shown great moral fibre in their unhesitating action to punish the perpetrators, but then seem to be unable to replace them with anyone who actually represents the will of the people. Cutting off the head of the hydra is singularly ineffective, the subsequently growing new one is worse in most cases.

The net result is a level of acceptance of immoral but legal actions which many find uncomfortable, but can not change -- hence the outcry every time there is a new leak.

[Galactus]

..and 'the king is naked'

i would like to appreciate the efforts of people disclosed those documents and showing is corrupt people across the globe!

so basically, whatever those rich affluent says, opening an offshore company and account means, you are basically evading tax by not bringing your earned money to your country.

or for hiding your money from authorities.

i wonder if they will hang Xi Jingping and his family in China?

hope such leaks follow in the future so we can all see such corrupt people.

[MrTee]

May be Peston is your go-to-guy, but its not for everyone - I guess it is easy to find a commentator to suit your agenda.

Richard Murphy..
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/07/fisking-robert-peston-on-tax-avoidance/

What you fail to understand is that tax avoidance is morally repugnant to most people..

You have this group of people making use of social benefits (Roads, Schools, Hospitals, etc) that depend on the use of the labour of wealth creating workers. who were educated by the state, cared for by state hospitals, and often subsidised by the state. These people are exploited companies and organisations that then refuse to contribute to the state. Its morally unjustifiably, what ever the semantics of "avoidance" or "evasion" you want to chose.
The organisations depend on the banking systems we bailed out - on the research and development that we fund - and the law and order system we pay for, but are too greedy to contribute towards it!

Then the poorest, and those that depend on socially provided services that are made to suffer as there are not enough funds left to pay for it!

Legal or illegal it's scrounging off of everyone else in society!

They are the true state scroungers

Edited April 7, 2016 by MrTee

[MrTee]

And I don't just mean those in the UK.. Though the UK does appear to be hub of this off-shore abuse. and also the sink-hole for the money!

All those that have syphoned off money and used it to buy high value real estate in London for example.. where you now have whole areas that are never lit up at night as the people that bought the properties with their illicit gains do not even live there.

This has caused a massive increase in house prices and left many hard working people unable to buy their own homes in the towns and cities where they grew up..


I think the UK should confiscate all properties that are owned by off-shore companies until such a time as the real owners come forward and prove that the funds to buy the property are entirely lawful and legal and tax was paid in the country of origin!
Give them one year to provide proof or sell the off and use them money to build social housing for the real people!

Edited April 7, 2016 by MrTee

[craigt3365]

May be Peston is your go-to-guy, but its not for everyone - I guess it is easy to find a commentator to suit your agenda.

Richard Murphy..

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/07/fisking-robert-peston-on-tax-avoidance/

What you fail to understand is that tax avoidance is morally repugnant to most people..

You have this group of people making use of social benefits (Roads, Schools, Hospitals, etc) that depend on the use of the labour of wealth creating workers. who were educated by the state, cared for by state hospitals, and often subsidised by the state. These people are exploited companies and organisations that then refuse to contribute to the state. Its morally unjustifiably, what ever the semantics of "avoidance" or "evasion" you want to chose.

The organisations depend on the banking systems we bailed out - on the research and development that we fund - and the law and order system we pay for, but are too greedy to contribute towards it!

Then the poorest, and those that depend on socially provided services that are made to suffer as there are not enough funds left to pay for it!

Legal or illegal it's scrounging off of everyone else in society!

They are the true state scroungers

Tax avoidance is when I drive to a neighboring state to buy gas because it's cheaper there due to less taxes. Is that morally repugnant? I don't think so. What's repugnant are laws that allow this to happen. Get rid of the loopholes.

[Naam]

Tax avoidance is when I drive to a neighboring state to buy gas because it's cheaper there due to less taxes. Is that morally repugnant? I don't think so. What's repugnant are laws that allow this to happen. Get rid of the loopholes.

it is morally repugnant if you combine filling up your car with a blowjob while your wife is at home preparing dinner.

[MrTee]

May be Peston is your go-to-guy, but its not for everyone - I guess it is easy to find a commentator to suit your agenda.

Richard Murphy..

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/07/fisking-robert-peston-on-tax-avoidance/

What you fail to understand is that tax avoidance is morally repugnant to most people..

You have this group of people making use of social benefits (Roads, Schools, Hospitals, etc) that depend on the use of the labour of wealth creating workers. who were educated by the state, cared for by state hospitals, and often subsidised by the state. These people are exploited companies and organisations that then refuse to contribute to the state. Its morally unjustifiably, what ever the semantics of "avoidance" or "evasion" you want to chose.

The organisations depend on the banking systems we bailed out - on the research and development that we fund - and the law and order system we pay for, but are too greedy to contribute towards it!

Then the poorest, and those that depend on socially provided services that are made to suffer as there are not enough funds left to pay for it!

Legal or illegal it's scrounging off of everyone else in society!

They are the true state scroungers

Tax avoidance is when I drive to a neighboring state to buy gas because it's cheaper there due to less taxes. Is that morally repugnant? I don't think so. What's repugnant are laws that allow this to happen. Get rid of the loopholes.

Well I don't know, some would class that as stupid..

Unless you live metres from a state border then driving 10s or even 100s of KM to save a few dollars seems somewhat daft.

You are being somewhat disingenuous Craig, clearly I am talking about organisations that are avoiding taxes. whether you drive 1 or 100 Km to get "gas" which, by the way, is a liquid, is entirely up to you fella.

But yeah I totally agree that the laws that allow this to happen are clearly wrong and need to be re-thought.

It is morally repugnant that organisations that rely on the state refuse to contribute! If that makes it easier for you to swallow..

Edited April 7, 2016 by MrTee

[spidermike007]

And of the 850 Thais on that list all have denied any wrongdoing. It is quite simply in the nature of most Thais to deny, refuse to take responsibility for their actions, lie, and attempt to convince people that they are indeed law abiding and respectful, if and when they are not so.

And the more news that comes out about Putrid Putin the better. He might be the most corrupt politician on the planet. This leak is beautiful.