5 ms·

The UK is the second country with the most intermediaries (banks, accountants, lawyers…) listed in the Panama papers. The first one is Hong Kong, a former Briti

The UK is the second country with the most intermediaries (banks, accountants, lawyers…) listed in the Panama papers. The first one is Hong Kong, a former British colony. "More than half of the companies listed in the leaked Mossack Fonseca documents are registered in the U.K. or its overseas territories [...] If we want to understand modern Britain, we first need to realize that our primary economic function in the world today is probably our network of tax havens." http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/04/britains-empire-of-tax-evasion-panama-papers-mossack-fonseca/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/04/britains-empire-of-tax-e...

fennecfoxen 10y ago
Tax havens, hmm? So around the world, basically, the good honest career politicians from Argentina to Zambia are going around to profitable businesses saying "hey, nice business you have there! We'd like to take, say, 50% of your profits, if you don't mind, and spend it on our friends - government contractors, public-sector unions and the like. All the donations to our campaign afterward are purely incidental, I assure you, and none of the subsidies or handouts we'll use your money for are vote-buying schemes, none at all. Thanks for your cooperation." ... and the UK provides places where they don't do that, not on the top-line profit anyway. Sure. I can see how having that would be attractive to both legitimate and illegitimate operators. Its net impact on corruption, though, would be a little tricky to sort out. (Postscript. As I'm being moderated down without comment, I assume that those doing so are those privileged enough to be in a nice low-corruption Western economy where we have a slightly better grade of politician than, say, Dilma Rousseff and her legislature. So I wish to note that despite cynicism about world governments I retain due respect for anti-corporate sentiment as well...)
- edko 10y ago
  I don't know about Zambia, but in Argentina most people don't care too much about campaign contributions. The perception is that most of the corruption there is through cronyism, and kickbacks from outrageously overpriced goods and services bought by the State. It is not politicians robbing businesses, but politicians and some businesses robbing the tax money of, mainly, the middle class.
  - mancerayder 10y ago
    The thing about campaign contributions is that it's all about the exchange: in return, the contributors get a say in government policy, enforcement, decisions. It undermines democracy. Is it better, or worse, than naked cronyism and kickbacks in the form of contracts, overpriced goods and services, etc.? Hard to say. Depressing to think about.
ksec 10y ago
And when you consider Hong Kong is the tiniest in all those places mentioned within the paper........
branchless 10y ago
You got it. If the world crushed The City working people everywhere would benefit. The City is a total cancer. As a Brit I'd love to see it removed, permanently.
- vixen99 10y ago
  Reported that the City's contribution UK's national income is about £45bn or 3%, while London accounts for £334bn or 22% of the UK's. But to what extent is that 22% dependent on the indirect effect of the City? Britain will certainly be poorer and poor people will likely be even poorer. You want to see it removed regardless of consequences? Tax havens are the only defence against rapacious politicians who, unlike business people, do not suffer the ill effects of their policies. You can always get votes for promising bread and circuses! Do you think that's true or false? The enormous debt burdens we see across the world attest to that. For those who enjoy looking at both sides: http://www.conservativehome.com//platform/2011/08/in-defence-of-tax-havens-taxing-secret-swiss-bank-accounts-held-by-british-citizens-is-an-easy-win-and-a-helpful.html http://www.conservativehome.com//platform/2011/08/in-defence...
  - branchless 10y ago
    The London figure is always trotted out. All accounting is done through London. Also counting money like this doesn't count "wealth". A bunch of people creating new money as credit actually soaks up wealth as the rest of the UK is forced to exchange actual labour and products for fiat money against ever increasing land prices. Tax havens aren't bastions of freedom. Load of rubbish. They are allowing massive inequalities and letting rogues plunder common wealth. Did Abmramovich personally add billions in value? Or did he claim he, not the Russian people, "owned" much of Russia's oil and then washed a good part of it through London property?
    - simonh 10y ago
      If a trafficker uses a mule to carry opium across the mountains, then sells the drugs and then sells the mule, is the new owner of the mule responsible for drug trafficking? Abramovich is Russian and the responsibility of the people running Russia. Likewise if the Maffia recycles money into legitimate assets in Italy then trades those assets in London, it's pretty rich for an Italian to try to pin that on London. The article also talks about British overseas territories as though their laws are written in Westminster. They aren't. All these places make their own tax laws without any reference to the British government. Is this mentioned anywhere in the article? No, instead it's spun as though it's all a Westminster plot. Suppose Westminster did start imposing laws on these territories, would the Independent be applauding this as an example of responsible action or condemning it as an illegal and unconstitutional abrogation of Britain's responsibility to protect the independence of these territories? I think we have a right to know their opinion on that. Of course Britain has a responsibility to fight crime and work with other governments to crack down on abuses, but we can't singlehandedly be the policemen for the whole world.
josephcooney 10y ago
Except that the U.S. is considered to have a well-enough developed system of on-shore tax havens to not require going to Panama.
- tomcam 10y ago
  Please name just one. I pay a lot in taxes.
  - zorked 10y ago
    LLC in Delaware. Literally listed by my country's regulations as a tax haven.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    * Persons, actual or legal, with annual income/EBIDTA below $300k and/or net worth below $3MM, will not be deemed eligible for the IRS Section 708(c) conforming tax evasion schemes under the Trickle Down Economies Support Act.
  - s_dev 10y ago
    Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-...

fennecfoxen 10y ago

Tax havens, hmm? So around the world, basically, the good honest career politicians from Argentina to Zambia are going around to profitable businesses saying "hey, nice business you have there! We'd like to take, say, 50% of your profits, if you don't mind, and spend it on our friends - government contractors, public-sector unions and the like. All the donations to our campaign afterward are purely incidental, I assure you, and none of the subsidies or handouts we'll use your money for are vote-buying schemes, none at all. Thanks for your cooperation." ... and the UK provides places where they don't do that, not on the top-line profit anyway. Sure. I can see how having that would be attractive to both legitimate and illegitimate operators. Its net impact on corruption, though, would be a little tricky to sort out. (Postscript. As I'm being moderated down without comment, I assume that those doing so are those privileged enough to be in a nice low-corruption Western economy where we have a slightly better grade of politician than, say, Dilma Rousseff and her legislature. So I wish to note that despite cynicism about world governments I retain due respect for anti-corporate sentiment as well...)

edko 10y ago
I don't know about Zambia, but in Argentina most people don't care too much about campaign contributions. The perception is that most of the corruption there is through cronyism, and kickbacks from outrageously overpriced goods and services bought by the State. It is not politicians robbing businesses, but politicians and some businesses robbing the tax money of, mainly, the middle class.
- mancerayder 10y ago
  The thing about campaign contributions is that it's all about the exchange: in return, the contributors get a say in government policy, enforcement, decisions. It undermines democracy. Is it better, or worse, than naked cronyism and kickbacks in the form of contracts, overpriced goods and services, etc.? Hard to say. Depressing to think about.

ksec 10y ago

And when you consider Hong Kong is the tiniest in all those places mentioned within the paper........

branchless 10y ago

You got it. If the world crushed The City working people everywhere would benefit. The City is a total cancer. As a Brit I'd love to see it removed, permanently.

vixen99 10y ago
Reported that the City's contribution UK's national income is about £45bn or 3%, while London accounts for £334bn or 22% of the UK's. But to what extent is that 22% dependent on the indirect effect of the City? Britain will certainly be poorer and poor people will likely be even poorer. You want to see it removed regardless of consequences? Tax havens are the only defence against rapacious politicians who, unlike business people, do not suffer the ill effects of their policies. You can always get votes for promising bread and circuses! Do you think that's true or false? The enormous debt burdens we see across the world attest to that. For those who enjoy looking at both sides: http://www.conservativehome.com//platform/2011/08/in-defence-of-tax-havens-taxing-secret-swiss-bank-accounts-held-by-british-citizens-is-an-easy-win-and-a-helpful.html http://www.conservativehome.com//platform/2011/08/in-defence...
- branchless 10y ago
  The London figure is always trotted out. All accounting is done through London. Also counting money like this doesn't count "wealth". A bunch of people creating new money as credit actually soaks up wealth as the rest of the UK is forced to exchange actual labour and products for fiat money against ever increasing land prices. Tax havens aren't bastions of freedom. Load of rubbish. They are allowing massive inequalities and letting rogues plunder common wealth. Did Abmramovich personally add billions in value? Or did he claim he, not the Russian people, "owned" much of Russia's oil and then washed a good part of it through London property?
  - simonh 10y ago
    If a trafficker uses a mule to carry opium across the mountains, then sells the drugs and then sells the mule, is the new owner of the mule responsible for drug trafficking? Abramovich is Russian and the responsibility of the people running Russia. Likewise if the Maffia recycles money into legitimate assets in Italy then trades those assets in London, it's pretty rich for an Italian to try to pin that on London. The article also talks about British overseas territories as though their laws are written in Westminster. They aren't. All these places make their own tax laws without any reference to the British government. Is this mentioned anywhere in the article? No, instead it's spun as though it's all a Westminster plot. Suppose Westminster did start imposing laws on these territories, would the Independent be applauding this as an example of responsible action or condemning it as an illegal and unconstitutional abrogation of Britain's responsibility to protect the independence of these territories? I think we have a right to know their opinion on that. Of course Britain has a responsibility to fight crime and work with other governments to crack down on abuses, but we can't singlehandedly be the policemen for the whole world.

josephcooney 10y ago

Except that the U.S. is considered to have a well-enough developed system of on-shore tax havens to not require going to Panama.

tomcam 10y ago
Please name just one. I pay a lot in taxes.
- zorked 10y ago
  LLC in Delaware. Literally listed by my country's regulations as a tax haven.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  * Persons, actual or legal, with annual income/EBIDTA below $300k and/or net worth below $3MM, will not be deemed eligible for the IRS Section 708(c) conforming tax evasion schemes under the Trickle Down Economies Support Act.
- s_dev 10y ago
  Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-...