Paradise Papers

[TheCat]

Is this a legit thing to be concerned about? or just envy that other people have more money?

go....

[Mick Mac]

Both. Legit and envy.

[red devil]

Is envy a personal trait Mick or are you inferring to the country as a whole?...

[Loz]

Have you noticed something about every story in the Guardian about the Paradise Papers? None of them are open to comment. Why? Because they know that many commentators will point out the Guardian Media Group's own off-shore shenanigans.

The stories over the years have been, unsurprisingly, covered in other media outlets, including the Forbes and The Spectator.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#2c2084065969

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/

The Guardian were forced to defend themselves, which basically came down to "yeah, we push lots of money offshore, but that shouldn't stop us complaining that others do it".

https://www.theguardian.com/money/tax-gap-blog/2009/feb/02/tax-gap-guardian

I think Forbes' description of 'insufferable hypocrisy' pretty much sums it up.

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Have you noticed something about every story in

> the Guardian about the Paradise Papers? None of

> them are open to comment. Why? Because they know

> that many commentators will point out the Guardian

> Media Group's own off-shore shenanigans.

>

> The stories over the years have been,

> unsurprisingly, covered in other media outlets,

> including the Forbes and The Spectator.

>

> https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/2

> 8/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-co

> rporation-tax/#2c2084065969

> https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-gua

> rdian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/

>

> The Guardian were forced to defend themselves,

> which basically came down to "yeah, we push lots

> of money offshore, but that shouldn't stop us

> complaining that others do it".

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/money/tax-gap-blog/200

> 9/feb/02/tax-gap-guardian

>

> I think Forbes' description of 'insufferable

> hypocrisy' pretty much sums it up.

I doubt the journalists who write the stories see much of this though - they just see further cost cutting along with all the back office workers who lose their jobs as the big newspapers all merge and have "economies of scale".

So who benefits from GMG doing this. I say it's the greed of the same people at the top (the super rich). Of course everybody who works for a company where the executives are greedy like this could resign, doubt it will happen :)

[Loz]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I doubt the journalists who write the stories see much of this though - they just see further cost

> cutting along with all the back office workers who lose their jobs as the big newspapers all merge

> and have "economies of scale".

Maybe, though as you kind of point out - perhaps they know their jobs depend on it.

If you are a campaigner against off shore banking, as these journos seem to be, wouldn't it be more that a touch galling to know your employer was up to their eyeballs in it themselves? And if you knew that your job was directly financed from off shore tax wheezes, how does that impact your credibility?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I doubt the journalists who write the stories

> see much of this though - they just see further

> cost

> > cutting along with all the back office workers

> who lose their jobs as the big newspapers all

> merge

> > and have "economies of scale".

>

> Maybe, though as you kind of point out - perhaps

> they know their jobs depend on it.

>

> If you are a campaigner against off shore banking,

> as these journos seem to be, wouldn't it be more

> that a touch galling to know your employer was up

> to their eyeballs in it themselves? And if you

> knew that your job was directly financed from off

> shore tax wheezes, how does that impact your

> credibility?

>

> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I remember an Ethics sub course in my postgrad - but was mostly where people were harmed.

this is more difficult though - maybe some would start to look for another job

[Mick Mac]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is envy a personal trait Mick or are you inferring

> to the country as a whole?...

If you are wealthy and want a return on your investments in times of low interest, you are likely to seek a diverse portfolio of asset classes - these will potentially include a small proportion in hedge funds and private equity. But as these asset classes have investors from all over the world, then they tend to be structured in a holding company situated in the best place to suit ALL of the investors' jurisdictions. Inevitably therefore you could end up with money flowing through jurisdictions that specialise in fund administration (eg Lux) which have agreed double tax treaties with other jurisdictions.

As my Mum says, but poor people cant do that.... well they wouldn't want to risk their own savings/capital in high risk investments anyway. But we all do indirectly benefit as our pensions are all likely invested partially this way.

That's the defence as regards investments where the discretion as to where the investments are structured is outside each investor's individual control - and probably applies to the Queen's investments that made the press - Bespoke arrangements are a different matter, treaty shopping to achieve a personal tax benefit is less justifiable - I wouldn't be so understanding about matters such as Lewis Hamilton's jet.

The public's response is partly ignorance and partly envy. But to the extent that there have been tax avoidance abuses in the past, the investigative journalism has gone a long way to solving the problem of tax abuses and will continue to do so.

[JohnL]

Where is the line though - what do you think of the below - I suppose the difference is these were/are both used by poor people.

When I was in Uni we used covenants in order for parents to give money to their children - everyone did it and you got the tax back (they were originally designed for giving to charity and the loophole was closed eventually)

When I set up my current workplace pension we used a method of salary sacrifice (everyone used it and maybe still does)to get more money into the pension.

[Mick Mac]

Well, neither of those involve offshore vehicles, but I'd say the latter is generally fine, you are entitled to arrange your affairs to take advantage of legitimate tax reductions offered by Govt, the former is from days gone by where the abuse of a loophole was seen as fair game - we now have a GAAR (General anti avoidance rule) that protects HMRC from people taking advantage of such abuses.

[Loz]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When I set up my current workplace pension we used a method of salary sacrifice (everyone used it and

> maybe still does)to get more money into the pension.

A company I used to work for did that - it was, I believe, both sanctioned and encouraged by HMRC.

[JohnL]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, neither of those involve offshore vehicles,

> but I'd say the latter is generally fine, you are

> entitled to arrange your affairs to take advantage

> of legitimate tax reductions offered by Govt, the

> former is from days gone by where the abuse of a

> loophole was seen as fair game - we now have a

> GAAR (General anti avoidance rule) that protects

> HMRC from people taking advantage of such abuses.

GAAR - got to say I'd never heard of it. So if we feel something is designed to take advantage of a loophole - then it's illegal ?