Major EU governments shamed into crackdown on tax evasion

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.
So you consider it morally wrong to buy duty free when sailing/flying to/from UK?
You consider it morally wrong to use tax allowances, when applicable?

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.
This is merely a resort to pull heartstrings. It has no bearing, whatsoever on substantiating your argument.

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.
This is a completely different kettle of fish. This is about multi-national companies moving money around, exploiting internal invoices to misrepresent profit and loss within the companies to evade tax. There's no supposition or suspicion about this form of tax avoidance and EU and other countries are taking steps to eradicate this. I fully support the actions and inter-actions of countries to facilitate the proper tax payments.
My comment was to question your criticism about Cameron(s) using their allowable tax allowances, and buying shares in a company registered off-shore, even though there's no evidence of any wrongdoing.
Now your argument seems to be shifting towards it's morally wrong to pay lower taxes than that applied in one's host country.
We all do it, when the opportunity arises! So who's being hypocritical now?
Perhaps you ought to compare the amount of VAT lost through duty free sales or goods bought in other countries where VAT is lower to other tax avoidance schemes. Then you could justifiably argue about tax avoidance being morally wrong.

And you think it's morally ok? Says more about you as a person to be honest.
Now you've extrapolated my comments about using tax allowances and paying lower tax duties elsewhere, onto the tax evasion exploits of multinational companies. That's misrepresenting my comments and adapting my comments to apply to different scenarios.
Then you round that off with a cheap insult.........
 
Sponsored Links
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.)

Now you've extrapolated my comments about using tax allowances and paying lower tax duties elsewhere, onto the tax evasion exploits of multinational companies. That's misrepresenting my comments and adapting my comments to apply to different scenarios.
Then you round that off with a cheap insult.........

Your earlier post - this is exactly what's going on in a multi-billion squids scale. You may think that it's ok for Cameron to do this, and the odd person here and there, but they are part of the picture who are costing this country billions in taxes. I am sorry you cannot see that they are not separate things. Where do you think these people get their money from? Business - they didn't grow a magic money tree did they? They may not be called amazon or google, but they are still making stupid amounts of money off ordinary citizens and not paying back to the system and benefit the ordinary citizens who helped make them successful. They are being greedy, individuals, businesses whatever, they are all the same, they are all avoiding tax. Sorry you find it hard to understand.

It's estimated that tax havens cost the UK about 7.2bn a year from tax avoidance and evasion (figure obtained by the BBC), but even if that's a overestimate, it's still going to be a huge figure.

I am sorry too that you cannot see the link between the UK's deficit and they way the cutbacks are hurting the vulnerable and our services. If folk paid UK tax then we would be a better off country, and no need for such severe cutbacks surely?
 
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.)

Now you've extrapolated my comments about using tax allowances and paying lower tax duties elsewhere, onto the tax evasion exploits of multinational companies. That's misrepresenting my comments and adapting my comments to apply to different scenarios.
Then you round that off with a cheap insult.........

Your earlier post - this is exactly what's going on in a multi-billion squids scale. You may think that it's ok for Cameron to do this, and the odd person here and there, but they are part of the picture who are costing this country billions in taxes. I am sorry you cannot see that they are not separate things. Where do you think these people get their money from? Business - they didn't grow a magic money tree did they? They may not be called amazon or google, but they are still making stupid amounts of money off ordinary citizens and not paying back to the system and benefit the ordinary citizens who helped make them successful. They are being greedy, individuals, businesses whatever, they are all the same, they are all avoiding tax. Sorry you find it hard to understand.

It's estimated that tax havens cost the UK about 7.2bn a year from tax avoidance and evasion (figure obtained by the BBC), but even if that's a overestimate, it's still going to be a huge figure.

I am sorry too that you cannot see the link between the UK's deficit and they way the cutbacks are hurting the vulnerable and our services. If folk paid UK tax then we would be a better off country, and no need for such severe cutbacks surely?
So you've never taken the opportunity of duty-free, and you forgo your tax allowances? :rolleyes:

If your complaint is against the company, that's fair do's, but it wasn't, it was against an individual, ie. Cameron, who used his tax allowance.
There is a difference, but you're trying to combine the two.
So, I would agree that it's not fair for companies to exploit off-shore loopholes, most of which are now closed.
It's normal business practice to register in another country, in order to exploit lower taxes. It's a usual ploy by governments, such as Ireland to attract companies. It's similar to rate-free economic zones as offered by Local Governments in various locations around UK. As explained in this link: https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-business-rate-relief/enterprise-zones
Companies would be stupid to ignore the opportunities, when they're available.

But to equate that with individuals using tax allowances, and buying duty-free, etc, is ludicrous.
 
So why is it Himmy that you are the only person who thinks what Cameron (who gained from his father's tax-avoiding company, regardless of allowances or tax paid by Cameron) and all the others involved with the companies who use tax avoidance is ok?

Surely if that was ok, why is the world in uproar about it? Do you think you may be missing something?

By the way, I have no idea you keep going on about duty-free, I never mentioned it.

- ps, are you on Cameron payroll by any chance? Hope you're paying tax on that.
 
Sponsored Links
So why is it Himmy that you are the only person who thinks what Cameron (who gained from his father's tax-avoiding company, regardless of allowances or tax paid by Cameron) and all the others involved with the companies who use tax avoidance is ok?
Your argument is still based on suspicion, not fact!
It is normal for companies and individuals to seek to minimise their outgoings. It would be silly, even stupid, not to!
Everyone does it.
I could even argue that a board member should be removed from a company board if they didn't.

Surely if that was ok, why is the world in uproar about it? Do you think you may be missing something?
You're the only one going on about it. The story was a political football for a day or so. Now it's gone, forgotten by all, except you.
It was only ever a political football, something to sling at Cameron. it was never anything other than that.

By the way, I have no idea you keep going on about duty-free, I never mentioned it.
It's a tax avoidance scheme, one we all take advantage of. To not exploit, if when the opportunity arises, is a bit stupid not to, like not claiming your tax allowances.

- ps, are you on Cameron payroll by any chance? Hope you're paying tax on that.
Silly! It doesn't help your argument at all.
 
It is normal for companies and individuals to seek to minimise their outgoings. It would be silly, even stupid, not to!
Everyone does it.
I could even argue that a board member should be removed from a company board if they didn't.
You sure you're not working for Cameron? You sound like one of his tory bastard supporters.


It's a tax avoidance scheme, one we all take advantage of. To not exploit, if when the opportunity arises, is a bit stupid not to, like not claiming your tax allowances.

Lets face it, Cameron's father set up more than one company overseas. There is only one reason why folk do that, and it isn't for the sunshine.

Silly! It doesn't help your argument at all.
It was supposed to be silly. Bravo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets face it, Cameron's father set up more than one company overseas. There is only one reason why folk do that, and it isn't for the sunshine.
As only one of your responses deserve a reply, I'll only deal with that one comment:
There are a number of reasons why one sets up a bank account in a different country.
Suppose I wanted to deal with, say US stock market, in 1980'ish, all transactions would have been in dollars.
Now where, in 1980, could I find a UK bank account that allows me to deal in dollars without bank service charges for each transaction? Simples! I couldn't!
I'd have to set up an off-shore account that allows me to deal in dollars. Aaah, but most countries require an address in that country, to open a bank account. Aaaah, I'll look around for a designated country that allows foreigners without addresses in that country to open an account. It's called an off-shore account! There's usually less regulation that allows such accounts. They're designed like that, by their governments to encourage investment in that county. Just like UK Economic Business Zones, Ireland's lower Business Taxes, etc. If people/businesses did not use them, they would be a pointless tool.

While UK had currency restrictions in force prior to 1980, (I think the limit of money out of UK was a paltry £250 or som'at silly like that) such accounts was in sterling, and most still are. Only recently can you find a UK bank willing to use Euros or Dollars instead of sterling.

If, however you wish to trade with a company in Australia, New Zealand, China, etc. you'd still need an off-shore account, or an account in that country, (which might be difficult without an address there) unless you were willing to pay bank service charges on each transaction.

There are other reasons for off-shore accounts, such as less regulation, (Don't forget UK banks were only deregulated by Thatcher and Gordon.), less transparency, and of course, the one that now creates all the hooha, less tax. Most off-shore accounts do not charge tax at source, they allow the gross interest, so that account holders can declare their income in their country of residence. For all you know, Cameron senior may have been doing just that. Cameron junior certainly was! It's only a suspicion, a suspicion held only by Cameron's political opponents, that Cameron senior was not paying the appropriate tax.
BTW, tax debts do not die with you. So if any tax was owed by Cameron senior, it would have been deducted from his estate prior to being inherited.

There are some countries, such as US, that require you to declare all your global financial accounts, and will charge you tax on them. It's the law.

All expats, receiving UK pensions can have their pensions paid in one of three ways, 1) direct into a foreign account, at the UK governments exchange rates: 2) into a UK account, where they hold it until a favorable exchange rate is available and they exchange it then: or 3) into a foreign account who will charge you a foreign currency service transaction and convert at their exchange rates.

It is possible to open a UK bank account, while you have a UK address, and to continue that account after you no longer have that UK address. But you can't open an account without a UK address. A similar situation applies throughout EU countries and other OECD countries. (1 see note)

Similarly, most countries still operate a limit on how much currency can be taken out of the country before declaration.
EU has a 10,000 Euro limit, which applies to UK also.
If I wanted to move £100,000 to an account abroad, without declaration, I'd need an off-shore account which provides a degree of secrecy. Switzerland used to be one of those destinations possible.

So the question of taxation is not the only reason for off-shore accounts.

Edit. After thought, you can have interest paid in gross, in a UK account, but you have to complete forms, and possibly prove that you are not resident, for tax purposes, not liable for tax, and/or paying appropriate tax elsewhere.

Note 1, some global banks such as HSBC will allow you to open an account in another country without an address in that country, as long as you have held an account with them for a while, you continue to hold your account in your country of residence, and/only within the local regulations of that foreign country. For instance you can open a HSBC account in another EU country without even visiting that country, but you couldn't do that in say, Asian countries, you'd have to physically visit that country to open a HSBC account there.
 
Last edited:
Offshore banking has often been associated with the underground economy and organized crime, via tax evasion and money laundering; however, legally, offshore banking does not prevent assets from being subject to personal income tax on interest. Except for certain people who meet fairly complex requirements, the personal income tax of many countries makes no distinction between interest earned in local banks and those earned abroad. Persons subject to US income tax, for example, are required to declare, on penalty of perjury, any foreign bank accounts—which may or may not be numbered bank accounts—they may have. Although offshore banks may decide not to report income to other tax authorities, and have no legal obligation to do so as they are protected by bank secrecy, this does not make the non-declaration of the income by the tax-payer or the evasion of the tax on that income legal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_bank
Using an off-shore account for tax evasion is illegal.
It's not surprising that Cameron was so angry at the accusations that his Father had been behaving illegally.
As previously mentioned, interest earned on accounts in off-shore banks may not be taxed at source, but it's illegal to then not declare it in your country of residence/ taxation.
 
Interesting bit of political relevant info', which of course has only been relevant for the last 7 years or so, and certainly wasn't relevant 30 odd years ago.
Since starting to survey offshore jurisdictions on April 2, 2009, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) at the forefront of a crackdown on tax evasion, will not object to governments using stolen bank data to track down tax evasion in offshore centers, such as in the 2008 Liechtenstein tax affair. The recent sharing of confidential UBS bank details about 285 clients suspected of willful tax evasion by the United States Internal Revenue Service was ruled a violation of both Swiss law and the country’s constitution by a Swiss federal administrative court. Nevertheless, OECD has removed 18 countries, including Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, from a so-called "grey list" of nations that did not offer sufficient tax transparency, and has re-categorized them as "white list" nations. Countries that do not comply may face sanctions.

A notable exception is Panama, whose canal is currently needed by all Western nations, which provides it with a unique type of immunity to international pressure. Given the enlargement of the canal to accommodate larger shipping, it is unlikely that Panama would succumb in the foreseeable future to international pressure toward transparency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_bank
 
criminals have to launder money,those in power just change the law to launder money legally
Isn't that like accusing 'those in power' of needing to 'launder' money'?
We could extrapolate that to 'those in power' have money that needs to be laundered. 'Those in power' are criminals. 'Those in power' are assisting criminals, etc.
 
Lets face it, Cameron's father set up more than one company overseas. There is only one reason why folk do that, and it isn't for the sunshine.
As only one of your responses deserve a reply, I'll only deal with that one comment:
There are a number of reasons why one sets up a bank account in a different country.
Suppose I wanted to deal with, say US stock market, in 1980'ish, all transactions would have been in dollars.
Now where, in 1980, could I find a UK bank account that allows me to deal in dollars without bank service charges for each transaction? Simples! I couldn't!
I'd have to set up an off-shore account that allows me to deal in dollars. Aaah, but most countries require an address in that country, to open a bank account. Aaaah, I'll look around for a designated country that allows foreigners without addresses in that country to open an account. It's called an off-shore account! There's usually less regulation that allows such accounts. They're designed like that, by their governments to encourage investment in that county. Just like UK Economic Business Zones, Ireland's lower Business Taxes, etc. If people/businesses did not use them, they would be a pointless tool.

While UK had currency restrictions in force prior to 1980, (I think the limit of money out of UK was a paltry £250 or som'at silly like that) such accounts was in sterling, and most still are. Only recently can you find a UK bank willing to use Euros or Dollars instead of sterling.

If, however you wish to trade with a company in Australia, New Zealand, China, etc. you'd still need an off-shore account, or an account in that country, (which might be difficult without an address there) unless you were willing to pay bank service charges on each transaction.

There are other reasons for off-shore accounts, such as less regulation, (Don't forget UK banks were only deregulated by Thatcher and Gordon.), less transparency, and of course, the one that now creates all the hooha, less tax. Most off-shore accounts do not charge tax at source, they allow the gross interest, so that account holders can declare their income in their country of residence. For all you know, Cameron senior may have been doing just that. Cameron junior certainly was! It's only a suspicion, a suspicion held only by Cameron's political opponents, that Cameron senior was not paying the appropriate tax.
BTW, tax debts do not die with you. So if any tax was owed by Cameron senior, it would have been deducted from his estate prior to being inherited.

There are some countries, such as US, that require you to declare all your global financial accounts, and will charge you tax on them. It's the law.

All expats, receiving UK pensions can have their pensions paid in one of three ways, 1) direct into a foreign account, at the UK governments exchange rates: 2) into a UK account, where they hold it until a favorable exchange rate is available and they exchange it then: or 3) into a foreign account who will charge you a foreign currency service transaction and convert at their exchange rates.

It is possible to open a UK bank account, while you have a UK address, and to continue that account after you no longer have that UK address. But you can't open an account without a UK address. A similar situation applies throughout EU countries and other OECD countries. (1 see note)

Similarly, most countries still operate a limit on how much currency can be taken out of the country before declaration.
EU has a 10,000 Euro limit, which applies to UK also.
If I wanted to move £100,000 to an account abroad, without declaration, I'd need an off-shore account which provides a degree of secrecy. Switzerland used to be one of those destinations possible.

So the question of taxation is not the only reason for off-shore accounts.

Edit. After thought, you can have interest paid in gross, in a UK account, but you have to complete forms, and possibly prove that you are not resident, for tax purposes, not liable for tax, and/or paying appropriate tax elsewhere.

Note 1, some global banks such as HSBC will allow you to open an account in another country without an address in that country, as long as you have held an account with them for a while, you continue to hold your account in your country of residence, and/only within the local regulations of that foreign country. For instance you can open a HSBC account in another EU country without even visiting that country, but you couldn't do that in say, Asian countries, you'd have to physically visit that country to open a HSBC account there.

Do you get invited to parties often?
 
I think your "bastard Tory" comment showed your true colours.
Your viewpoint is based not in fact, but on ideology.
Cameron has broken no law. He is just richer than you.
But then again, so is Tony B. Liar.
Such a quandary.....
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top