Britain should not crack down on tax havens as doing so would destroy their livelihoods, senior Tory
53 replies, posted
[quote]The Government should not stop British overseas territories acting as tax havens because it would destroy their livelihoods, a senior Conservative MP has argued.
Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general and chair of an influential parliamentary committee, conceded the British Government could choose to enact legislation to stop some activities that drained tax from the UK.
He however said places like the British Virgin Islands – which is under UK sovereignty – were “entitled” to run their financial services sectors as they pleased.
[B]“If we’re going to destroy the economy of the British Virgin Islands because we prevent them from providing banking services at all then we’re going to destroy the livelihood of its inhabitants,”[/B] he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
[B]“For those reasons I think the Government has a responsibility towards encouraging overseas territories to find legitimate ways of economic development and the financial sector is undoubtedly such a legitimate method – just as it has been for Switzerland or any others.[/B]
“We need to consider carefully the consequences of [doing that]. If we were to follow the suggestion that we should effectively remove the autonomy of overseas territories to run their lawful financial services I don’t think we are acting properly towards them. [B]They are entitled to make their own decisions in this.”
[/B]
He also argued that it was inevitable in human society that the wealthy would attempt to move their profits to low-tax jurisdictions.[/quote]
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-should-not-crack-down-on-tax-havens-as-it-would-destroy-their-livelihoods-senior-tory-mp-a6969121.html[/url]
I see where he's coming from, but it doesn't mean nothing should be done about the problem.
Is it legal to buy a company to store all your cash? Yes because the people who can afford to do so write the tax code, is it moral to do this, hell no!
This reinforces the 2nd class citizenship we non-corporate entities have been relegated to, corporations have more rights than the people who run them
Woah the conservatives became humanitarians overnight, [I]I wonder why[/I]
How about all the livelihoods of the people who lost their jobs as a result of the cuts that were made to make up for all the money lost to these tax havens? Or the disabled people who died as a result of Osbornes attempts to save money on disabled benefits?
To hell with their so-called livelihoods. There are other alternatives to acting as an offshore tax haven. Besides, it's easy to see that this is a piss poor excuse to justify the existence of tax havens and their usage of them.
Conservatives only giving a shit about the rich, you don't say.
Honestly the UK is so poor at cracking down on tax not being payed by big people and companies we are a tax haven in ourselves
[quote]“If we’re going to destroy the economy of the British Virgin Islands because we prevent them from providing banking services at all then we’re going to destroy the livelihood of its inhabitants[/quote]
Assuming that everyone on the islands benefits from this shady ass tax scheme. Which I highly doubt they do, its basically the rich helping the rich.
Fuck off.
Wtf he is literally saying that tax havens are a legitimate method of economic development?
Hey guys we are losing billions in taxes while the big industry is making big bank without giving shit to their employees but trust me as a conservatice, trickle down economies WORK!
[editline]6th April 2016[/editline]
[quote] They are entitled to make their own decisions in this.”[/quote]
Ok. You still need to crack down on fuckers for tax evasion??????
Did he also mention the fact that half the worlds trade economy is stored in there, doing nothing but getting more money for the same rich people
If they're so concerned about the citizens of the virgin islands they should close the tax loopholes and use a fraction of the billions collected to subsidise life for those virgin islanders.
Truth is this asshole is putting the interests of a private company + himself infront of the interests of the british people. IMO should lose his job. The government will never close loopholes while its infected to the core with this kind of attitude and corruption.
Hmmm
[url]http://www.economist.com/news/international/21693219-having-launched-and-led-battle-against-offshore-tax-evasion-america-now-part?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/thebiggestloopholeofall[/url]
Maybe the US, Germany and GB should stfu a bit about tax evasions...
Yeah, you're not a conflict of interest at all.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50080755]Hmmm
[url]http://www.economist.com/news/international/21693219-having-launched-and-led-battle-against-offshore-tax-evasion-america-now-part?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/thebiggestloopholeofall[/url]
Maybe the US, Germany and GB should stfu a bit about tax evasions...[/QUOTE]
You see the big issue in about the 2nd paragraph, America needs congressional action to overhaul our system, fat chance getting that done with a red Congress
[QUOTE=MR-X;50080547]Assuming that everyone on the islands benefits from this shady ass tax scheme. Which I highly doubt they do, its basically the rich helping the rich.
Fuck off.[/QUOTE]
I mean, I don't agree with him and I think people using tax havens are super scummy, but you'd be surprised.
Here in Malta where I've moved, a huuuge portion of the country's economy is based around their lax laws for online gambling websites. Pretty much every well paying position is in iGaming. And before they came in, Malta was largely considered a third world country.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case in the Virgin islands too. I doubt they have a lot of industries and exports.
Once again I disagree with the guy, but shutting these tax havens would definitely have an effect on the economy of a place as small as the Virgin islands
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50080855]
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case in the Virgin islands too. I doubt they have a lot of industries and exports.
Once again I disagree with the guy, but shutting these tax havens would definitely have an effect on the economy of a place as small as the Virgin islands[/QUOTE]
IIRC, their main industry and largest income is tourism, not banking.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50080899]IIRC, their main industry and largest income is tourism, not banking.[/QUOTE]
According to Wikipedia financial services account for over half their income I think
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50080913]According to Wikipedia financial services account for over half their income I think[/QUOTE]
I'm probably mixing them up with the American Virgin Islands, then
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50080931]I'm probably mixing them up with the American Virgin Islands, then[/QUOTE]
that's fair, when you get to island clusters and territories like that it gets super convoluted
Are the Virgin Islands's economy that fixated on banking that doing this would really hurt them?
I mean if so it's probably time to diversify their economy or something, easier said than done I'm sure but it's honestly bullshit that people should now feel sorry for them because they built their economy on being a fucking tax haven.
It sets a bullshit precedent that not paying your taxes is fine because the corporation you may be working for isn't paying either. I don't care how developed they are, if they're developed due to what many would consider corruption by avoiding taxes then they deserve to be cracked down on.
Won't happen though because that would be reasonable.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50081130]Are the Virgin Islands's economy that fixated on banking that doing this would really hurt them?
I mean if so it's probably time to diversify their economy or something, easier said than done I'm sure but it's honestly bullshit that people should now feel sorry for them because they built their economy on being a fucking tax haven.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they are
Britain COULD take the dependencies under direct control again to prevent these kind of tricky tax dealings, like we did as a result of corruption in Turks and Caicos in 2009, but it is hard to justify and looks colonial, so probably won't happen for now.
[editline]6th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=RAG Frag;50080373]Woah the conservatives became humanitarians overnight, [I]I wonder why[/I][/QUOTE]
Not corporations, but:
[IMG]http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-04-26-at-15.09.59.png[/IMG]
The coalition in particular did good work on tax evasion.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50081186]Yeah they are
Britain COULD take the dependencies under direct control again to prevent these kind of tricky tax dealings, like we did as a result of corruption in Turks and Caicos in 2009, but it is hard to justify and looks colonial, so probably won't happen for now.
[editline]6th April 2016[/editline]
Not corporations, but:
[IMG]http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-04-26-at-15.09.59.png[/IMG]
The coalition in particular did good work on tax evasion.[/QUOTE]
lol graphs from the spectator, that totally trustworthy and not massively right wing bias blog
the same spectator that wrote this amazing article
[URL]http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/atheism-may-be-fashionable-but-most-intelligent-people-believe-in-god/[/URL]
An actual quote
[QUOTE]One thing all these talented writers and thinkers have in common, apart from their disbelief in the Almighty, is great physical ugliness. That alone should explain it.[/QUOTE]
The reality is it didn't increase shit all
[url]http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4723465.ece[/url]
That's not even an argument. Every single new site has had terrible articles written for it, and every site has bias. But the figures are, unfortunately for you, correct.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50081261]That's not even an argument. Every single new site has had terrible articles written for it, and every site has bias. But the figures are, unfortunately for you, correct.[/QUOTE]
The spectator has more terrible articles than the bloody dailymail, it's a terrible source.
I already posted a source showing why that is not the case.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50081280]The spectator has more terrible articles than the bloody dailymail, it's a terrible source.
I already posted a source showing why that is not the case.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but you aren't the person who decides what a high quality source is. The Spectator is usually considered (by people who have a clue) fairly well when ignoring personal opinions, and you just don't accept it because it doesn't confirm your biases.
Their own supporters are all for it.
[IMG]http://puu.sh/o8r1G/83896cf925.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50081294]Sorry, but you aren't the person who decides what a high quality source is. The Spectator is usually considered (by people who have a clue) fairly well when ignoring personal opinions, and you just don't accept it because it doesn't confirm your biases.[/QUOTE]
It called osborne a socialist, it's fox news level journalism.
Any blog that allows an article that argues atheists are ugly is a complete and utter rag, not even the sun sinks to those levels.
This Dominic Grieve guy should be investigated for tax evasion if he isn't already
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50081312]It called osborne a socialist, it's fox news level journalism.[/QUOTE]
I think you have bad reading skills if you actually think they were serious. The point of the article was to say that he's been missing his budget targets (true) and not really implementing austerity (mostly true) and implementing left-wing reforms like the living wage (partly true). They don't actually think he is a socialist, they're just trying to make a point
[editline]6th April 2016[/editline]
You're still citing one article, good work. You can do that with any publication. The Guardian, The Times, the New Statesman, pretty much anything has appalling articles approved for it.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50081322]I think you have bad reading skills if you actually think they were serious. The point of the article was to say that he's been missing his budget targets (true) and not really implementing austerity (mostly true) and implementing left-wing reforms like the living wage (partly true). They don't actually think he is a socialist, they're just trying to make a point[/QUOTE]
It's very heavily right wing bias, it's not a trustworthy at all, even the dailymail has more journalistic integrity than they do. It's just a crappy blog that panders to middle class rightwingers.
I can't think of any other papers that have published anything that bad, maybe that one time the guardian allowed that anti trans article through but they at least had the decency to take it down. You can go through plenty of spectator articles and they all have that similar level of quality.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.