Major EU governments shamed into crackdown on tax evasion

[JohnD]

A result of the citizens finding out how much wealthy crooks have been tolerated, by governments composed of other wealthy crooks.

"The five largest economies in the European Union have agreed to share information on secret owners of businesses and trusts.

It is a concerted attempt to show their leaders are responding to public concern over the Panama Papers leak.

The UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain have agreed to the data exchange."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36049817

We're all in this together

...aren't we?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ore-tax-dodging-now-we-know-the-a6972551.html
"The suspicion will be that such a move would have impacted most on wealthy Tory donors and supporters and it was that which prompted British opposition to the European plan."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/panama-pap...n-sought-softer-curbs-offshore-trusts-1553567

See also
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35757265

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ax-haven-used-by-politicians-and-celebrities/

"Among those named in the "Panama Papers" are close associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin, relatives of Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, Iceland's prime minister, as well as Barcelona striker Lionel Messi.

In Iceland's capital Reykjavik, thousands took to the streets late on Monday to demand the premier resign over allegations that he and his wife used an offshore firm to hide millions of dollars of investments."

Useful how-to-do-it guide:
http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Guillotine

 

[Himaginn]

What are you up to now, John?

I know the Independent is slating Cameron on "the suspicion" of something. Papers do that all the time. Politicians do it. We all do it. Let's do it........... I feel a song coming on.........

Tax avoidance - yes, we all do it. Who owns a classic car, and voluntarily pays the road tax? Who doesn't claim tax allowances, or voluntarily ignores them? Who pays inheritance tax on less than the allowable limit? Who pays CGT on less than is needed to? Who doesn't return from France stocked up with booze, and fuel? If the system has loopholes built in, people will use them to avoid paying tax. It's obvious init?
If there was still a window tax, we'd all be fully employed bricking up windows!

Tax evasion - illegal and punitive measures if caught.

What Cameron did was a bit of tax avoidance. I would do the same. It was sensible to sell his shares just before the £10k CGT limit was reached. Whether he did it because he was about to be PM, or to avoid CGT, to me is irrelevant. It was sensible to do so at that time. (Sam also sold hers but she wasn't about to be PM.)
Investing in off-shore company shares is perfectly legit. It's a bit like owning Santander or HSBC shares, they're not listed on UK Stock Exchange.
That's all the off-shore shares were, on this occasion, and he paid tax on dividends. he didn't do it to evade tax. He didn't hide the transactions or the dividends.
Has Cameron actually said that tax avoidance is not acceptable? He has said that tax evasion is wrong and that he will take measures to reduce it. if that closes some loopholes to reduce tax avoidance as well, that's a shame, but tax rules change all the time.


But what has London property owners, and building a guillotine got to do with it? Are you suggesting a rebellion?

 

[blightymam]

Has Cameron actually said that tax avoidance is not acceptable?

He did say it wasn't fair.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[Himaginn]

OK. blightyman, but there's usage of allowances, which Cameron did, selling his shares before £10k profit was reached. Although we're not sure he did it then for that reason. I just said if he did, for that reason, that's a fair and reasonable thing to do, I would do likewise.
His ownership of shares were clearly not designed to avoid tax 'cos he paid tax on the declared dividends.

Whereas Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance was 'an aggressive tax avoidance scheme' where he resigned from his company, set up an off-shore trust, into which his salary is paid. Legal at the time, but the loophole may have been closed by HMRC now.
Cameron did none of those things, he merely bought some shares in his Father's company, which happened to be registered off-shore, and subsequently sold 'em. Anyone who buys shares in companies registered abroad is doing exactly the same, more or less. Even if he used both his and Sam's CGT allowances, it's exactly what anyone else would do.

So the situations were entirely different, one was aggressive tax avoidance by using a non-designed loophole, therefore on the fringes of legality. T'other was merely investing and using tax allowances. Therefore, not kettle, black, pot etc.

 

[blightymam]

Legal perhaps, but moral?

Not exactly 'all in it together' is it?

Don't get me wrong, yes folk who can dodge tax will, but when you have a government who like to use that mantra then you find out your PM is not practicing what he preaches, well then he should go. I don't give a **** if what he did was legal, nor the rest of the elite and rich folk in the world. I hope they close all these loopholes.

It's the double standards I cannot abide. Yes, pot kettle black is entirely correct.

 

[Himaginn]

But he wasn't dodging any tax. He was just using the CGT allowance, exactly the same allowance that is available to us all.
So he wasn't dodging or avoiding any tax payment. There was simply no tax payment due on that amount!
Do you think he should have waived his right to CGT allowance? Do you think he should have donated the profit on his shares to charity, or to the taxman?

It's a nonsense story. Exactly the same process was applied to Cameron (and Sam) as would have been applied to any of us.
The only reason that the story is running at all is because the shares were in his father's company, which was registered in Panama.
If those shares had been in, say, RBS, or some other purely UK company, the same allowances would be applied. he did nothing wrong, nothing illegal, nothing immoral, and exactly the same as anyone of us would do.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

I suspect every tradesman on this forum evades a bit of tax now and then, by doing various jobs for cash, no VAT. Everybody's happy! (except the tax man )

 

[JohnD]

I am commenting, among other things, on Campbell being the world leader who pressed for Trusts to be left secret.

I am also commenting on the world's billionaire gangsters laundering their ill-gotten gains in the purchase of palatial homes in London, seemingly No Questions Asked.

And I am commenting that these governments only opened their mouths after the scandal was brought to the attention of the voters whom they are supposed to represent. In Russia it is being said that the scandal was only publicised to expose Emperor For Life Putin, and his retirement fund.

 

[blightymam]

But he wasn't dodging any tax. He was just using the CGT allowance, exactly the same allowance that is available to us all.
So he wasn't dodging or avoiding any tax payment. There was simply no tax payment due on that amount!
Do you think he should have waived his right to CGT allowance? Do you think he should have donated the profit on his shares to charity, or to the taxman?

It's a nonsense story. Exactly the same process was applied to Cameron (and Sam) as would have been applied to any of us.
The only reason that the story is running at all is because the shares were in his father's company, which was registered in Panama.
If those shares had been in, say, RBS, or some other purely UK company, the same allowances would be applied. he did nothing wrong, nothing illegal, nothing immoral, and exactly the same as anyone of us would do.

He (and Samantha) gained from a company which was set up overseas so they didn't have to pay tax. The fact that Cameron paid tax on those shares is neither here or there. He gained, end of.
As I said, I know they did nothing illegal, but when you are running a country, preaching to folk about being in it together, calling for the end of tax evasion, you cannot be linked to any tax-dodging companies and still remain credible.

 

[Himaginn]

He (and Samantha) gained from a company which was set up overseas so they didn't have to pay tax.

But was it?

Was Blairmore used to avoid tax?
Initially, this is possible. In 1982, when Blairmore was set up, offshore funds were more tax-efficient than UK funds, on which investors had to pay tax annually. But the UK tax authority did not like this and so introduced a new tax regime for UK investors in offshore funds in 1984.......

Graham Aaronson, an expert on anti-avoidance at Joseph Hage Aaronson, a litigation firm, says: “That explains why, in the eyes of [the taxman], this was not tax avoidance. It is outrageous to regard this as abusive tax avoidance.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/01f5b790-fd9f-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d.html#axzz45ud1aO7g
Note the FT said,'this is possible' but no-one has been able to definitely say so.

The fact that Cameron paid tax on those shares is neither here or there. He gained, end of.

So if the PM invests in shares. then sells them later at a profit, paying tax on the dividends in the meantime, in your opinion that's not acceptable?

As I said, I know they did nothing illegal, but when you are running a country, preaching to folk about being in it together, calling for the end of tax evasion, you cannot be linked to any tax-dodging companies and still remain credible.

So, in your opinion, the PM should not have made any financial investments so that he could say, without worry. "we're all in this together"?
Isn't that tantamount to saying the PM should have given all his money away?
Your complaint is based wholly on your phrase "you cannot be linked to any tax-dodging companies and still remain credible". If the company wasn't tax dodging, but taking advantage of lower tax rates in another country, (it's now based in Ireland for exactly the same reason.) doesn't that invalidate your argument.
As the tax-dodging has not been proven, your argument is based on supposition and suspicion.

 

[JohnD]

I suspect every tradesman on this forum evades a bit of tax now and then, by doing various jobs for cash, no VAT. Everybody's happy! (except the tax man )

But perhaps people who do pay tax are less happy, that they have to chip in a bit more to make up the shortfall left by the fiddlers.

 

[blightymam]

As the tax-dodging has not been proven, your argument is based on supposition and suspicion.

And so has your theory of he did nothing morally wrong.
Wait and find out shall we?

 

[JohnD]

Nothing to see here.

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/ar...n-who-are-linked-to-tax-avoidance--gylgIvPk2e

 

[blightymam]

If the company wasn't tax dodging, but taking advantage of lower tax rates in another country, (it's now based in Ireland for exactly the same reason.) .

Am sorry, but no. Why should a born, bread and resident of a country, a country that you get to enjoy all the benefits and then think it's ok to pay less tax elsewhere?
I know it's legal Himmy, but I do not think it's moral. The whole thing stinks tbh.
I understand human nature, I understand greed (and this is exactly what this is), but it's not a good thing.

We have a government who is cutting back on the poor, the services that we need and keep preaching to us that we are all in this together.

Pah.

When I read about families who can no longer afford to feed themselves because of no fault of their own, ie illness, job loss at the wrong age and the knock on effect of the conservative cuts, then I feel really sad. Then I hear about the hospitals that are losing funding so much they cannot operate in a safe and quick manner, saving lives and I feel even more sad.

Then I read about the millions - no BILLIONS of money that would be paid into Britian if the tax system was more fair and the loop holes did not exist, then I feel sick. We'd not have so many cuts if the greedy gits paid into Britain. There's been bits about this in the press, before the Panama stuff, Amazon, Starbuck, google... and all of those have been met with derision, quick correctly.

And you think it's morally ok? Says more about you as a person to be honest.

 

[JohnD]

I was particularly amused by the idea that public services in a country should be provided to those people or companies who have paid for them.

So if, for example, Facebook's London HQ caught fire, rather than the taxpayer-funded London Fire Brigade rushing to their aid, they should call the Cayman Islands and see if anyone will get in a boat with some buckets.

Or if the tax-dodging proprietor of the Daily Mail, Lord Rothermere, needed someone to investigate a break-in at his mansion, he could ask his buddies in the Conservative Party to come and play Cluedo with him, rather than troubling the Wiltshire police.