7 ms·
UK 'a tax haven for multinationals' (2014)
- dragonbonheur 11y agoSpeaks volumes why Obama wants the UK to remain in the EU. His corporate handlers know that it is inevitable that taxes will increase if there is a Brexit.
- fredley 11y agoI would have thought remaining in the EU would result in (eventual) greater regulation, and Brexit would make the situation worse (for non-corporations).
- ryanlol 11y agoAre the people taking advantage of these arrangements non-people?
- vidarh 11y agoThat makes no sense. The EU countries with higher tax levels are constantly pushing to reign in the EU "tax havens", whereas outside the EU, the UK will be free to use even lower tax rates and more tax breaks as a means of retaining and attracting international business, and may need to, in order to prevent an exodus from the City etc.
- varjag 11y agoTo be fair, exiting EU would put the UK at disadvantage as EU tax heaven / headquarters beachhead. Common customs and VAT space goes out of the window, as well as hundreds other compliance regulations tying the EU together. Luxembourg and Cyprus will certainly get a lot of new business. But I really doubt Obama rationales have anything to do with that.
- dragonbonheur 11y agoObama by himself, no. But the executives from which he raised money will make him do and say anything they want.
- fauigerzigerk 11y agoNo one can make a US president in his last year in office say anything.
- dragonbonheur 11y agoTPP and the manner with which it was discussed proves otherwise... Obama is a moderate Republican, really. https://theintercept.com/2015/05/12/cant-read-tpp-heres-huge-corporations-can/ https://theintercept.com/2015/05/12/cant-read-tpp-heres-huge... http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/24/barack-obama-fast-track-trade-deal-tpp-senate http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/24/barack-obama-... http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations...
- fauigerzigerk 11y agoPlease explain to me how this proves or even just suggests that Obama was forced to say anything.
- dragonbonheur 11y agoAccording to http://www.proeuropa.org.uk/twelevereasons http://www.proeuropa.org.uk/twelevereasons, the UK enjoys all of this thanks to the EU: 1. Jobs Around 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to British membership of the European Union’s single market – 1 in 10 British jobs. 2. Exports & investment The EU buys over 50 per cent of UK exports (54 per cent of goods, 40 per cent of services). Over 300,000 British companies and 74 per cent of British exporters operate in other EU markets. American and Asian EU firms build factories in Britain because it is in the single market. 3. Trade The EU negotiates trade agreements with the rest of the world. Outside the EU Britain would have to renegotiate trade deals alone. While the EU is the world’s largest market, a UK outside the EU would not be a high priority for other counties to negotiate a trade deal. 4. Consumer clout British families enjoy lower mobile phone roaming charges, lower credit card fees, cheaper flights and proper compensation when flights are delayed or cancelled. These sorts of benefits could not be achieved by Britain alone. 13. Research funding The UK is the second largest beneficiary of EU research funds, and the British Government expects future EU research funding to constitute a vital source of income for our world-leading universities and companies. A Brexit could mean that there will be increased taxes on all of this to compensate from these lost advantages, which will surely translate to increased corporate taxes.
- fauigerzigerk 11y agoThe UK is completely free to set its taxes inside the EU as it sees fit. Just look at Ireland with its 12.5% corporation tax and its position at the center of numerous tax evasion schemes. You say other countries are constantly pushing, but Ireland was only recently bailed out by exactly those other Eurozone countries, and even in that precarious situation, Ireland was not forced to change its tax rates.
- guard-of-terra 11y agoДля многонационалов. If you understand what I'm getting at.
- mtmail 11y agoThat translates to "for multinational". I don't understand what you're getting at though.
- otec 11y agofor rich and corrupt russians is the correct translation
- guard-of-terra 11y agoA person who fits a profile: - Born in Russia - Speaks Russian - Holds or used to be holding Russian passport - Does not really consider oneself Russian or answers "I'm Russian, but" - Does not respect Russians, not really, but knows what's better for them - Probably has ancestors who were important Soviet officials, often in some now-independent Republics - Liberal political outlook but ends up backing Putinism when acting - Probably owns something in London, Miami, Nice - Family members living in aforementioned locations - Probably sits in government or duma or connected to such officials - In a position for which it's hard to reason if they are competent and how their life trajectory landed them there That's the people who run & own Russia for all its sorry state.
- vixen99 11y agoTangentially - if there's no tax rate competition which seems to be the desired goal of many, there's nothing to stop politicians continuing to bribe their electorate with bread and circuses paid for by that electorate's money. The gigantic debt mountains in the US and the EU demonstrate the degree to which they do that. And when it's all over, out of office, out of responsibility! Companies have of course to keep prudent accounts or go out of business.
- icebraining 11y agoConsidering that currently "tax rate competition" exists, and as you point out the US and EU have "gigantic debt mountains" anyway, the argument that such competition is important to keep states from accumulating too much debt seems to be defeated by your own claims.
- sievebrain 11y agoIt's the other way around - if all tax rates were uniform around the world, borrowing (or variously disguised forms of tax rebate) would be the only way for governments to control their own budgets.
- ssmoot 11y agoYou can have a different political opinion without being hyperbolic and going all "wake up sheeple!".
- toyg 11y ago> Companies have of course to keep prudent accounts or go out of business. Wrong comparison. A politician is to government what a CEO is to a company. Loads of CEOs make terrible decisions to appease the stock market short-term, then leave the company before shit hits the fan. Replace "CEOs" with "prime ministers" and "stock market" with "electorate". Human nature is what it is.
- Ontheflyflyfly 11y ago" if there's no tax rate competition" The point is, these executives are not living in Ireland or Panama but in the valley or some highly developed country in Europe. So while the enjoy the benefits of those countries, the want to avoid paying taxes. No one has anything against people who want to enjoy Irish tax laws who move to Ireland. Or people who want to have a company in Panama to move to Panama.
- rmc 11y agoAnd don't forget the Channel Islands and Isle of Mann. Lots of sorta-British tax havens there.
- anexprogrammer 11y agoYou missed a few British territories. Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Jersey, Isle of Man, and Bermuda is the full list I think. Makes statements from Cameron on the topic especially hypocritical.
- loopbit 11y agoYou forgot Gibraltar, but your point stands.
- dghughes 11y agoWhat about the City of London within London does it have separate banking rules?
- vermontdevil 11y agoProbably the biggest one of all
- pjc50 11y agoThe "city" as a social group has a lot of indirect influence. The City of London Corporation is an unusually-shaped local authority with a long history. It's not the banking regulator, that falls between the BoE and the FSA. The City does however have control of the anti-fraud police.
- return0 11y agoCyprus, malta, seychelles ...
- anexprogrammer 11y ago
- known 11y agoUK is also a haven for fugitives http://www.economist.com/news/business/21697271-after-good-times-comes-reckoning-vijay-mallya-hangover http://www.economist.com/news/business/21697271-after-good-t...
- kingsleymani 11y agoListen to Donald Trump robocall urging California's 'no party preference' voters to register as Republicans. see more here http://sh.st/IS9mr http://sh.st/IS9mr
- Theodores 11y agoIt is quite hard to think of a tax haven that is not part of the Commonwealth or former British Empire, Panama being one of the few. A true tax haven is a different thing to mechanisms like the 'Double Irish', seems UK PLC is getting even with that. The Square Mile - 'City of London' - is like a country within a country too, so lots of strange finance things go on with London being one big black hole that money orbits, mysteriously. This is how Britain punches above its weight to make London a 'world city' as far as global capitalism is concerned. This has been going on for centuries.
- twic 11y agoNone of Macau, Monaco, Liechtenstein, or Switzerland are former British possessions.
- bb101 11y agoBut they all share the same similarity - culturally and historically connected to their larger counterparts, enabling well-connected citizens to hide their money.
- cylinder 11y agoAustralia also has very lax money laundering laws, it is said that Mossack Fonseca would have faced less regulation being based in Australia vs Panama. Tories are all about extracting wealth through property and money management (tax avoidance and money laundering are forms of asset management really).
- jamessb 11y agoAustralia is in the Commonwealth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwea...
- nixisfun 11y agoAustralia has reasonably strong money laundering laws. Australia also has quite strong financial tracking via AUSTRAC and the big four banks. Do you have any sources?
- mentos 11y agoAnyone else feel like the problem here isn't tax havens but the tax system. Is there a better approach than collecting taxes? What if inflation was used as a tax (printing money)?
- throwaway7456 11y agoInflation wouldn't work since its used by governments as a tool to adjust import and export rates. A alternative system to taxes would be to demand payment whenever someone uses a state resource. A shop uses roads to have goods delivered, so they should pay a percentage to the state. Customers use the road to travel to the shop, so a small price is paid by the shop to the government per customer. If someone don't want to use the roads, they are free to buy the land necessary and build their own road system. A factory has also transported goods and employees traveling to work, but they also uses the public education that those employees has. That mean for each hired employee, the factory should pay the relative price as compensation to the state. If a factory don't want to hire state educated citizen, they are free to find a workforce elsewhere. A internet service sends bits traveling in copper and fiber that goes through state owned land. A price per bit then is reasonable. Same goes to radio waves traveling through state owned air space. If someone don't want to pay, they are free to build their own network. Then there is the protection racket where police and military prevents theft. Those costs has to be recovered, so a monthly price in relation to the assets being protected sounds perfectly reasonable. If someone don't want to pay, the military can always go and make a visit.
- mvc 11y agoThat last point is why the rich should quit whining about paying proportionately more tax. They have more to lose given a leviathan state.
- F2468 11y agoWouldn't people just store wealth in things that are out of reach of politicians inflation policies? Bitcoin, gold etc? Another approach is to lower taxes and create less of an incentive to circumvent them in the first place...
- 11y ago
- mavhc 11y agoSo is USA of course, as shown on The Daily Show. 15 second clip: https://youtu.be/pm_a58S1NjU?t=27 https://youtu.be/pm_a58S1NjU?t=27