[Closed] The Panama Papers.

A bit of a stats-feat between Giles and Piketty

Monetarism is over? really? Phew!

Quite a relief, because from what I can see if it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's usually....

Perhaps your are mistaking a duck and a chicken?

BTW that Economist article

Are the data wrong?

Whilst obviously very correct, doesn't it sound wrong/awful, how many other publications would follow this usage.

THM: your "old news" was provocation (not devoid of humour) which I took without comment. My reply was equally neither devoid of humour nor provocation.

I hope there was humour and provocation in some of your earlier posts.

Some of the things that mean the British tax system is not progressive where the very rich are concerned:

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/2955865/Tax-deductibletax-exempt-investments.html ]Exempted investments[/url]

Forestry: a zero tax investment with high barriers to entry - only the wealthy can afford it [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/questor/12034568/How-to-invest-in-UK-woodland.html ]Highly profitable too.[/url]

Venture capital trust dividends are tax exempt - if you follow "only invest what you can afford to lose" they are a rich-only investment

Foreign residency: Britain is one of the easiest countries to live in whilst claiming to be an overseas resident and therefore only liable for UK tax on your UK income (which is clearly minimised). The rich live in the UK most of the time while claiming to be living somewhere else. See also "FOTRA securites" which mean that once resident abroad you can invest tax free in uk government securites. All this means being rich enough to have property abroad and not doing a day job which requires official UK residence - you need to be rich to benefit then.

There are more but the idea is: if you are rich enough you really don't need to pay the UK government more than a token amount of tax even if you live in London most of the year and hold a British passport.

Any answers yet?

You keep typing that as though anyone has a clue what you are talking about. Care to enlighten us, or is it yet another proof of your great intellectual superiority?

Edukator - a tax system is not only there to raise money, it can also be used as an instrument of policy to encourage investment in areas where you want it. I would have thought you would love VCTs, they are responsible for a very large proportion of the Solar Panels in the UK. The woodlands tax regime is much the same and has been a long term policy - certainly 50 years and is in fact less generous than it was.

FOTRA - well done, haven't heard this term for years - we have a small Bond market we have to entice investors, beggars (literally) can't be choosers.

You are mixing up the concepts of residency and domicile, but there have been considerable changes in the last few years and I think you might be surprised how they now work.

Anyway, this is all very interesting, but back on topic.... Though I'm sure that Hurty will dismiss this as 'its Paul Mason', I don't think I disagree with a word of this:

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/11/smash-uk-mafia-elite-treat-offshore-wealth-terrorist-finance-perugia ]we dont wantbto be a neo-feudal backwater, where inherited wealth and an unifficial mafia rules.[/url]

What Dave, his Eton cabal, their offshore inherited wealth, and the dodgy (to quote Dennis) financial interests in the City that they so shamelessly represent are living proof of, is that this country is as far away as it's ever been from any serious form of meritocracy, social justice or mobility

@binners 🙂 thread definitely better with pictures, tbh I'd lost interest until then

@Edukator UK system pretty progressive I'd say certainly more so than most of Europe which has VAT on food and no reduced rates for ultility bills for example. Looking at "super rich" is a red herring imo as they are highly mobile and without incentives are likley to move away. Incentives for investment make sense for the nation.

@binners it would be much better if we aboloshed iht, many of us here have argued for that for some not least as its such an easy tax to legally avoid.

Come now binbins, we don't want a parliament of losers do we? Or as Alan Duncan said, "low achievers" which is what I assume his kind of Tory labels someone without a "hint of wealth"...coming from daddy and mumsy.

Whilst I may be mixing up the terms, there are 113 000 [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_non-domiciled_status_in_the_UK ]non-doms[/url] in the Uk and the numbers are growing.

Some are highly mobile, Lewis Hamilton for example. Others less so. Read Ben Goldsmith's profile and you'll find that pretty much all his business and family interests are UK based (and he finances the Conservative party). If these people were American they'd have to pay tax in the US or give up their US citizenship.

As for [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft ]this one.... .[/url]
Edit to add Ashcroft detail:

"He sat on the Conservative benches of the House of Lords until 2015, having been ennobled as a life peer in 2000. His peerage was controversial due to his status as tax exile.[5] The Cabinet Office stated that he would take up permanent residence in the UK for tax purposes,[5][6] however it was revealed a decade later that he had not done so"

it would be much better if we abolished it, many of us here have argued for that for some not least as its such an easy tax to legally avoid.

I am fully aware of non doms but as I alluded to in my previous post the benefits of being one have been much reduced as the last few years. In addition, you can't benefit from being a non dom and sit in either House of Parliament.

I don't need to read Goldsmith's bio, I know him vaguely and his brother is my MP, I blame it on his rapacious capitalist father who was French.

Ashcroft was overly cute, but he didn't breach his representation, anyway he had to rescind his status to sit in the Lords.

If these people were American they'd have to pay tax in the US or give up their US citizenship.

Which creates a ridiculous compliance burden with limited tax take - it has been termed an employment act for accountants and lawyers. But if you want a case study in how not to tax the rich, the USA is a good starting point.

@Edukator Hamilton can't be a non-dom (afaik) as he's British and so are his parents. Non-Dom status is basically for foreigners who the uk tries to attract to the uk by saying they will be taxed on their uk income but not money they make abroad. Originally for people like Greek Shipping magnets but Greece got their own back by making all their income tax free if they live in Greece. At least Tories make them pay something (£30k I believe) and have "limited" then to 17 years, as I posted it should be 5 and payment should be £100k

Any comment on whether uk tax system is less progressive than France with 5.5% tva on food and 45% top rate kicking in much lower down than uk's top rate. The 66% rate is paid by the company not the employee.

JY iht is a tax on already taxed income. Personally I think the original name of "death duties" is more appropriate, its a tax on dying paid by those unable to gift the money 7 years prior to death. The difference with speeding is that's against the law whilst avoiding iht is legal.

jambalaya - Member

@Edukator Hamilton can't be a non-dom (afaik) as he's British and so are his parents. Non-Dom status is basically for foreigners who the uk tries to attract to the uk by saying they will be taxed on their uk income but not money they make abroad. Originally for people like Greek Shipping magnets but Greece got their own back by making all their income tax free if they live in Greece.

None of this is right btw.

Read the links guys. Ashcroft did ten years in the Lords as a non-dom even though it wasn't allowed to even at the time. Anyone with two passports can be a non-dom, I could do it. However, I'm not as rich as Hamilton so it wouldn't be worth my while. £30000 to someone who would normally be paying a few million in tax is not a fat lot. You wanted proof that the British tax system is not progressive and I'm providing it.

Northwind happy to be corrected. I understood Hamilton was tax xresodemt in Villars, Switzerland before moving to Monaco. Comments about Greeks I believe to be correct

On a much happier note I've just had a tremdous laugh out loud moment, Corbyn the gift that keeps on giving. He forgot to put all his pension income on his tax return. £6k state pension plus another pension from his time in local government - he didn't include any of it. This is the man who would have us believe is qualified to run the country. 😀

Initially Labour spokesman tried to claim pension income wasn't taxable 😯 😯 😯

What a massive own goal

Corbyn's pension pot is worth £1.6m pretty generous when the rest of us can only save just over £1m before attracting penal rates of tax.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/jeremy-corbyn-admits-failing-to-include-state-pension-income-on/ ]Linky[/url]

😯

Some of the things that mean the British tax system is not progressive where the very rich are concerned:

Ok believe what you want. Was the link of ANY use?

If you want to cherry pick individual items of the tax and benefits systems, fine. And in the link you will find some ammo to help out - they point out which bits are regressive versus positive. But quite sensibly and correctly the ONS look at the system as a whole.

Dr, I wouldnt like to have to resort to words of only one syllable. Just keep ignoring the two very simple questions posed. The reason is clear....

@Edukator I don't believe Hamilton has two passports and when Ashcroft was a Lord you could be a non-dom, Cameron changed the rules (thats my recollection). Agreed it should be morevthan £30k, I proposed £100k

How is uk tax less progressive than France when they have vat on food ?

Sloppy Jezza or Dodgy Dave - which is the more accurate?

Either way, good job no one is arguing that these people should be running more of the economy.

"we are pleasd to announce that the new British Steell made a profit of £250 million in the latest fiscal year"

"what about the operating expenses?"

"the what? Oh we will be adding those in next week, is that ok? My biro ran out of ink"

and if they don’t, they burn.

C'mon Paul, lest burn them ourselves. Is there not the slightest hint of irony writing this in the Guardian? Don't bite the mouth that feeds you Paul.

"but what about my divi, Sam wants a nice pressie this year?"

I have no idea what the questions to DrJ were either, Jamba. I did look at your link but as it doesn't include the richest people in the UK, figures from the national statistics office aren't that useful. You see people like Ashcroft, Hamilton and Goldsmith are non-dom and not included. I wonder how many bilions in tax the non-doms would pay if they were doms? That doesn't stop them living in the UK with all the benefits provided by people who do pay UK tax.

jambalaya - Member

Comments about Greeks I believe to be correct

Don't doubt it for a second, there's a great many things you believe to be correct that are not. Non-dom status which you think was originally for people like greek shipping magnets (sic) actually dates back to the foundation of income taxes during the napoleonic wars 😆 It's got nothing to do with "attracting foreigners" whatsoever. Also being british and having british parents is not a barrier to being non-dom- domicile of origin is only one of the ways to claim non-dom status.

Jamba - that's brilliant

The only person to so far be revealed as a tax dodger is the leader of the Labour Party 😆

I reiterate my previous point: doddery old fool!

Before any taxes and benefits, the UK had one of the highest levels of income inequality in the EU. [b]However, the UK’s tax and benefits system appears to be more redistributive than that of many other countries with relatively high pre-tax and benefits inequality, [/b]bringing the UK close to the overall EU average for inequality of disposable income.

Hard to believe eh? The ONS? Burn them.....

Almost a hint of John Rawls in that....

The only person to so far be revealed as a tax dodger is the leader of the Labour Party

Do you [i]know[/i] that he's dodged any tax?

(Hint: You don't.)

Corbyn is human shocker!!

He might just be an MI5 plant to ensure Dodgy Dave and pals continue to run Her Majesty's Government just the way she likes it, but I doubt it...

The non dom rules have changed a lot

The remittance basis charge is £30,000 if you have been resident for seven out of the last nine years rising to £60,000 if you have been resident for twelve out of the last fourteen years and finally £90,000 if you have been resident for 17 out of the last twenty years.

From April 2017, if you are a long term resident (resident for at least fifteen out of the last twenty tax years) there are current proposals to stop the availability of the remittance basis altogether an you will be taxed on the arising basis.

Re Lord Ashcroft, I had a very long argument with TJ, inter alia, when the issue arose. In the course of this I went to the source papers, as I said he was overly cute. Unfortunately the appointments committee had no understanding of tax and he was well advised. This enabled him to make a representation which did not involve him rescinding his status and which the committee assumed did because of their lack of understanding. Not great, he is hardly a paragon of virtue, but not against the rules at the time which have, rightly, since been changed. He wasn't the only peer to be effected.

EDIT: Hamilton may be able to maintain Jamaican (?) domicile as a result of his father.

It's dreadful when people make those kinds of accusations DD isn't it? 😉

Maybe Ninfan is confused because the Lab spokesman initially said that sloppy Jezza was not liable for tax on this income (opps) before changing this to the tax has been paid. Hard to follow isn't it?

Still we now have Tory backbenchers talking about the inevitability of full disclosure and Burnham and Thornbury backtracking - a case of be careful what you wish for perhaps ? Where's the smoking gun lying now???

We shall see. There may be a story here after all. Lets hope so because it's been pretty dull on the facts front so far....

Do you know that he's dodged any tax?

The likelihood is that his coding would have taken care of the tax, but he has made a false return which at best is not a great look!

Well I never...
[url= https://www.rt.com/news/339310-spy-agencies-panama-papers/ ]
Panama Papers: Spy agencies widely used Mossack Fonseca to hide activities[/url]

[b]Intelligence agencies from several countries, including CIA intermediaries, have abundantly used the services of Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca to "conceal" their activities[/b], German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) says, citing leaked documents.

Both [b]"secret agents and their informants have used the company's services,"[/b] wrote the newspaper, which earlier this month published online materials based on 11.5 million documents from the Panamanian law firm. It has been called the largest leak on corruption in journalistic history.
[b]
"Agents have set up shell companies to conceal their activities," the Munich-based newspaper reported, adding that there are CIA mediators among them.[/b]

According to SZ, [b]Mossack Fonseca's clients also included some of those involved in the so-called Iran-Contra affair, in which several Reagan administration officials secretly facilitated arms sales to Iran in the 1980s in order to secure the release of US hostages and fund Nicaragua's Contra rebels.[/b]

The Panama Papers also claim to reveal that some [b]"former high-ranking officials of the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, Colombia and Rwanda" are listed amongst the company's clients. Among them was Sheikh Kamal Adham, the former Saudi intelligence chief, who according to SZ, was "one of the CIA's key intermediaries in the 1970s" in the Middle East region.[/b]

The Panama leak claims to expose the offshore holdings of 12 current and former world leaders and provides data on the financial activities of 128 other politicians and public officials from different countries. Newspapers around the globe had plenty of world leaders to choose from, – from President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko to King Salman of Saudi Arabia and the late father of British Prime Minister David Cameron.

With high-profile figures on the menu, the majority of the international media rushed to accuse Vladimir Putin of corruption, even though neither he nor any members of his family were mentioned in the Panama Papers leak.

Last week WikiLeaks tweeted that the US government and American hedge-fund billionaire George Soros allegedly funded the Papers to attack Putin. According to the international whistleblowing organization, the US government's funding of such an attack appeared to be a serious blow to its integrity.

[b]One former CIA officer told RT that the fact that the Western media has been unanimously using the Russian leader as the “face” of the Panama Papers leak can be explained by one simple look at the organizations behind these news outlets.[/b]

“[b]Everyone in corporate press is controlled by corporations that profit on wars and have an interest in creating tensions[/b] – all these people in the Western press, like the Guardian, are blackening Putin [for being] a designated villain here. Curiously, his name is not in these documents,” Ray McGovern said, adding that it was “a major mistake made by the leaker” to hand the documents over to the corporate media, instead of leaking them to trusted independent journalists.

There were many raised eyebrows particularly over little mention of the exposed offshore dealings of UK Prime Minister David Cameron's late father. Last week the British PM admitted that he benefited from shares in an offshore trust set up by his father. Cameron, who is facing outrage over revelations concerning his private finances, told ITV that he had received £300,000 (about $420,000) in inheritance from his father, who died in 2010. Yet he claimed that he didn’t know whether any of that money came from an offshore source. A massive protest gathered in front of PM David Cameron’s residence at 10 Downing Street on Sunday, calling for his resignation.

...sloppy Jezza...

Jesus...is this another one of those things you're going to write over and over and over again because you think it sounds hilarious? He made a mistake with his tax return. If you're going to label every person who's done that "sloppy"...be my guest...you're going to have to do it a lot. I've done it. I've even had a few fines over the years for late submitting. Not since I employed an accountant to do it of course. Maybe JC should employ one though maybe he felt that his stuff was simple enough not to need one. Who knows? What's that verse from your book of fairy tales you like to quote every so often? Rob 15:3 or something?

Hard to follow isn't it?

It's as hard as you want to make it seem to suit your agenda. I dunno...we either take everybody at their word, or we believe none of them. Or we believe those to whose policies we're wed the most. The third option seems to be what most people here seem to be doing.

but he has made a false return which at best is not a great look!

Well, as I've done that myself, I'll take Rob 8:15 on that too.

I reckon Offshore Dave is better myself.

Corbs could do with Cameron's podh accountants it seems!

I suspect the headlines will instead focus on a dead celeb and the standard Tory MP and prostitute scandal, tho I'm not sure that qualifies as a scandal any more? - I suspect that depends on whether he's an innie or an outie

There is a serious point though. Ignoring policy differences etc, as leader of the opposition you are expected to exhibit a measure of competence, Corbyn continues to make silly mistakes that bring this into question. He needs a decent PA whose advice he is willing to accept, warts and all, if he is going to deliver anything for his supporters. I am not sure he is thick skinned enough for that.

EDIT: McDonnell seems a far more effective politician but isn't regarded as such a nice bloke.

One former CIA officer told RT that the fact that the Western media has been unanimously using the Russian leader as the “face” of the Panama Papers leak can be explained by one simple look at the organizations behind these news outlets.

Secondly, it's only the Russian media that is making out that Putin is the main target of the Panama Papers coverage. First, it was the Icelandic PM; then in the UK it's been Cameron and in France it has been SocGen.

Corbyn continues to make silly mistakes that bring this into question.

He needs some decent PR too. Maybe Dodgy Dave can give him some lessons after his week of gaffes.

Secondly, it's only the Russian media that is making out that Putin...

Did I hear right or did someone in Russia come out with the word "Putinophobia" shortly after the leaks were reported? 🙂

the standard Tory MP and prostitute scandal, tho I'm not sure that qualifies as a scandal any more?

Bit OT, but do you mean this?

[img] [/img]

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/you-think-we-suffer-petty-corruption-in-the-uk ]mentioned it months back[/url]

glad it's coming into the limelight, as there is [url= https://www.byline.com/project/48/article/966 ]a significant conflict of interest...[/url]

[url= http://nicholaswilson.com/smoking-gun/ ]similar in many respects to a director of HSBC being Chair of the BBC trust[/url]

Or Gideon's mate being head of BBC News:

[img] [/img]

Wonder how far in advance the insiders got wind of the Panama Papers and how long they had to [s]spin bollocks[/s] publish the truth

If it turns out Corbyn has underpaid tax (£1,500 - £3000 ? We don't know what his other pension is or tax code / tax taken at source) whether due to a simple error, lack of understanding or wilful omission (unlikley) then I don't see how he can survive as leader. Even the Labour party isn't daft enough to boot him out a month before the Scottish elections surely or maybe they just write him off.

Hamilton. My money is on him being domiciled offshore for tax, ie in Monaco.

The BBC didn't break or know about the Panama Papers until the ICIJ broke the story. HTH

Hamilton can't be a non-dom (afaik) as he's British and so are his parents...

Everything you said there was utter bobbins

@jive I am sure even you realise those posts are distracting nobody's attention from the issue of the hour. I'd save them up for when there is even a slight chance someone will pay attention.

mefty - Member

There is a serious point though. Ignoring policy differences etc, as leader of the opposition you are expected to exhibit a measure of competence, Corbyn continues to make silly mistakes that bring this into question.

Agree with this tbh. This slip, if it's just the return itself rather than an actual tax error, is complete trivia; but it'll be like every other trivial slip or slur, blown up to a million times its actual size and used to attack him. It's all "questions asked" and "doubts raised", and people like Ninfan able to pretend it's proof he's dodged tax. He needs to be doing all he can to avoid this stuff- it shouldn't matter but it does.

Aside; Corbyn does his own tax return, by hand, like a normal person. How much does Cameron pay someone to manage his tax? I think a lot of people will be sympathetic to that; nobody likes doing their tax return. But it's still a **** up.

If it turns out Corbyn has underpaid tax

Itll be the biggest right-wing nut-job circle-jerk in recent history. Gotta put my hand up to that* too (though not "wilfully" - not that they gave a shit whether it was wilful or not) so again, I'm taking Lee 12:16 on that one.

*not the circle jerk thing.

@Northwind well Corbyn could have saved the £100 fine and this "slip" could well finish his career. With a pension pot worth £1.6m / £50k pa he can afford the few hundred quid an accountant would have cost to do his return, or he could have just paid attention and got his almost trivially easy return correct himself. Very expensive mistake