The Panama Papers

KomradeBishop

Lets keep that in its full context, thanks:

Western countries have more than enough economic/financial power to - collectively - try and force other countries to do whatever the hell they like really - they already do run a globalized financial economy, and they exert this power on other countries (e.g. Russia) on a regular basis.

They are perfectly capable of stamping out tax havens and evasion/avoidance, in a very short period of time.

I don't have to convince you that it is practical, you have to convince me and others - given a collective effort from western powers - that it's not practical to clamp down on it.

If international finance is capable of creating it - then western powers with collective influence over international finance, are capable of destroying it.

Beasty

KomradeBishop wrote: »

They are perfectly capable of stamping out tax havens

On this specific point, how would you define a "tax haven"?

riclad

A tax haven is a country where you can send your money to reduce your tax bill,
which keeps your finances secret and makes it easy to set up shell companys to hide your money from the tax ,man.
IF all the European countrys got together they could stop most tax evasion or
at least evasion carried out using shell companys .

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

Talking about "moral" is nonsense tbh. They only moral obligation on any person or corporation is to pay the amount of tax you are legally obliged to.

Otherwise you're claiming that there's a moral obligation to overpay tax. Which everyone would agree is complete crap.

"But they don't pay enough tax!". That's in your opinion. In reality they are paying the amount of tax they are legally obliged to. You can't apply arbitrary rules to suit your own sensibilities.

If the level of taxation paid by anyone is unsatisfactorily low, the obligation is not on those companies/individuals to voluntarily overpay their tax, but is on the state to ensure that the tax laws capture the correct amount of tax.

Witch-hunting through the Panama papers is a convenient distraction for countries to pretend this isn't a problem of our own making. It's our insular tax regimes that are at fault, not the companies who use them.

You are the voice of immoral officialism.

Of course it's wrong that a person earning X in salary pays 52% marginal while somebody else on 10X pays 10%.

Nor is it moral that a loophole in the law (not meant by legislators) is found for corporations to pay 2%. That's like saying that if, by whatever strange circumstances, certain types of murder became legal that it would therefore be legal to murder.

Eugene Norman

Beasty wrote: »

On this specific point, how would you define a "tax haven"?

Tax havens have very specific definitions in international law.

It's not just low tax rates but secrecy.

Eugene Norman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The big problem that people always miss is that poor people evade tax too. The only reason the rich are highlighted is because they have large amounts of money so the presumption in the minds of the public is they have it stashed in some offshore bank account. You will find the majority of well to do people having their income in a bank account or a legal company and are tax compliant.

If you take people with lwr income they are scamming the system also. They save up lots of small change so tax authorities won't be able retrieve any of it. They also rely on the sympathy and generosity of the public. The poor can't afford to pay charges or expenses so more well off must take on increasingly more and more taxation so perversely this leads to yet more tax evasion. Sympathy does not extend to paying extra for people who are outside the taxation system.

What are you talking about? Saving small change is tax evasion?

Eugene Norman

Beasty wrote: »

The actual solution is to do away with taxing companises (or reduce it to a rate it's not worth avoiding).

Ultimately all taxes are borne by individuals, so simply apply taxes directly (rather than indirectly) to things you cannot move or manipulate - that's employment income, consumption/sales and assets/property.

You mean what the poor working and middle classes can't move or manipulate?

KingBrian2

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What are you talking about? Saving small change is tax evasion?

Small changes of 5ers and 10ers when added up and stashed in the garden or given to your relative in Australia. No way would revenue be able to detect small amounts whereas if you have a large deposit in a bank it would be very difficult to say take it out when the time is needed. Greater scrutiny is required.

Eugene Norman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Small changes of 5ers and 10ers when added up and stashed in the garden or given to your relative in Australia. No way would revenue be able to detect small amounts whereas if you have a large deposit in a bank it would be very difficult to say take it out when the time is needed. Greater scrutiny is required.

Still utterly confused. Apparantly cash hasn't been taxed if it's small change and people fly to Australia with it.

Beasty

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Tax havens have very specific definitions in international law.

It's not just low tax rates but secrecy.

There is no such thing as "International law"

Everyone has a different definition. Ireland, as well as the UK and various other European countries, would fall into the category of "tax haven" when looking at many of those definitions

The OECD used to maintain a list of "uncooperative tax havens" but no country currently falls within that definition. They used to have another list of "tax havens" but that was discontinued precisely because no-one could agree on a definition of tax haven (which was largely because pretty much all major countries, including the US, would either fall into the definition or would have territories (in the case of the US, States) that fell into the definition)

KomradeBishop

See, here's the drive towards pushing the debate into semantics again - something that always happens in the tax avoidance/evasion debates, and which seems explicitly aimed at muddying those debates.

One of the key tactics used to try and drive debates into semantics/nitpicking, is to nitpick the legal definition of terms, even when the moral or colloquial definition, is very obvious and easily understood - so that's an effective tactic for trying to prevent people from discussing things, by trying to remove their ability to use the common/colloquial definition of terms, so that they can be diverted/hindered with a muddied legal definition (particularly when talking about international issues, involving multiple legal systems).

This is a tactic which seems to change/shift depending on the argument too - in one argument (maximizing shareholder value myth), the legal definitions suddenly don't matter, the myth is taken as true - in another argument (defining a tax haven, defining why tax avoidance is wrong), the legal definition suddenly becomes paramount, and gets used to obstruct debate.

Beasty

I would argue practicalities rather than semantics. What you are seeking to achieve simply will not happen in my lifetime, and probably not in the lifetime of my 11yo child

There are plenty of people out there who think they have a solution, but none that have one that will be acceptable to everyone that needs to be bought in. This is a global issue, and the OECD's BEPS project is the first proper global attempt to address it. However it will not produce anything near the hopes or expectations of many people who simply fail to comprehend the complexities.

KomradeBishop

That's another talking point that people always bring up in tax evasion/avoidance debates: "Stopping it will never happen, so don't try...resistance is futile."

Western nations pretty much control the global financial network - and can stomp on entire countries (e.g. Russia) whenever politicians are sufficiently pissed off with that country.

There is already the level of influence and co-ordination being exerted right now, to make it happen if those efforts were applied to this problem. There is nothing stopping them using this power and influence, to kill tax havens, and to kill tax evasion/avoidance.

Beasty

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's another talking point that people always bring up in tax evasion/avoidance debates: "Stopping it will never happen, so don't try...resistance is futile."

They are trying and it is happening, just not at a level many people are hoping for.

The OECD's BEPS project has started changing the behaviour of many multinational companies. That's currently benefitting the Irish Exchequer particularly as many US companies consider Ireland a "safe" tax haven. It's also bringing more jobs to Ireland. However ultimately you need to have rules to play by and some will push those laws to the limit. Such laws remain the safeguard with the risk of being prosecuted with punitive sanctions for straying the wrong side of the line.

Dohnjoe

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Western nations pretty much control the global financial network - and can stomp on entire countries (e.g. Russia) whenever politicians are sufficiently pissed off with that country.

Russia annexed territory and sparked/supported a war - the combined might of international sanctions have managed to shave off an estimated 1% to 1.5% of Russian GDP - and the situation hasn't reversed. An oil price drop has had a much larger effect.

seamus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You are the voice of immoral officialism.

Of course it's wrong that a person earning X in salary pays 52% marginal while somebody else on 10X pays 10%.

Nor is it moral that a loophole in the law (not meant by legislators) is found for corporations to pay 2%. That's like saying that if, by whatever strange circumstances, certain types of murder became legal that it would therefore be legal to murder.

Ah yes, a nice strawman on a lovely day.

These are of course completely different scenarios. Since murder is an assault on an individual causing direct suffering, whether it is legal or not does not impact on its morality. A better example to try and trip me up on would have been the legality of spousal rape. But since that too is an assault causing direct suffering, the morality of it too is unrelated to its legality.

Paying your tax does not fall into this bracket. When a society has created a legal framework which mandates a minimum level of taxation to be paid in order to fund that society, it is immoral to not pay that level of taxation. To make your contribution to society.

That's the fundamental of what you're saying. And me too.

And this is exactly what these companies and individuals are doing - paying the minimum level of taxation mandated by law. Therefore they are not doing anything immoral.

I'm going to use the same argument again - you claim your tax credits. You are reducing the tax you have to pay through legal methods. Are you being immoral? Why are you not forgoing your tax credits and paying what you should pay? And I know your answer is going to boil down to the amount of money you earn, but then your argument is that people who earn more money should be held to a higher moral standard than those who don't. Which is nonsense of course.

If the amount of taxation being collected is lower than necessary, it is not beholden onto the individual to volunteer to pay more, but on the state to redefine the minimum payable to meet society's needs. Be that through direct increases or legal measures to redirect the flow of funds.

KomradeBishop

The law does not decide what is moral. Morals decide what becomes law.

osarusan

seamus wrote: »

These are of course completely different scenarios. Since murder is an assault on an individual causing direct suffering, whether it is legal or not does not impact on its morality. A better example to try and trip me up on would have been the legality of spousal rape. But since that too is an assault causing direct suffering, the morality of it too is unrelated to its legality.

Paying your tax does not fall into this bracket.

Am I correct in understanding that your definition of 'immoral' is limited to something which causes direct suffering?

talking_walnut

KomradeBishop wrote: »

See, here's the drive towards pushing the debate into semantics again - something that always happens in the tax avoidance/evasion debates, and which seems explicitly aimed at muddying those debates.

Are semantics not fundamental to this discussion? Before you can work to change something you need to establish exactly what you're trying to change. Otherwise we're just trashing around in the dark, making loud noises.

KomradeBishop

You obviously didn't read - or deliberately chose to ignore - the rest of my post which you didn't bother quoting:

KomradeBishop wrote: »

See, here's the drive towards pushing the debate into semantics again - something that always happens in the tax avoidance/evasion debates, and which seems explicitly aimed at muddying those debates.

One of the key tactics used to try and drive debates into semantics/nitpicking, is to nitpick the legal definition of terms, even when the moral or colloquial definition, is very obvious and easily understood - so that's an effective tactic for trying to prevent people from discussing things, by trying to remove their ability to use the common/colloquial definition of terms, so that they can be diverted/hindered with a muddied legal definition (particularly when talking about international issues, involving multiple legal systems).

This is a tactic which seems to change/shift depending on the argument too - in one argument (maximizing shareholder value myth), the legal definitions suddenly don't matter, the myth is taken as true - in another argument (defining a tax haven, defining why tax avoidance is wrong), the legal definition suddenly becomes paramount, and gets used to obstruct debate.

seamus

osarusan wrote: »

Am I correct in understanding that your definition of 'immoral' is limited to something which causes direct suffering?

No, you'd be wrong in that understanding.

osarusan

seamus wrote: »

No, you'd be wrong in that understanding.

What is it then?

I ask because there seems to be an inconsistency in your post:

on the one hand, you say (regarding taxation) that if it stays within the law it is therefore not immoral, yet on the other hand, you say (regarding other things) that morality is unrelated to legality.

This distinction was explained by saying that some crimes involved causing direct suffering.

So, if that's not the entirety of the distinction between morality and legality, what is?

talking_walnut

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You obviously didn't read - or deliberately chose to ignore - the rest of my post which you didn't bother quoting:

I presume this was aimed at me.

No I did. I abbreviated your post to the point I was specifically responding to. I left out the rest of the post as it wasn't relevant to my question. See I've done it here again! Magic.

I'm trying to point out that you that there's no point in having an in-depth discussion about the problems with a system when you don't first define what that system is. Whether we like it or not, there's very real, legal definitions of what constitutes a tax haven, tax avoidance, etc. I'm not suggesting we all need to go study law for decade to be able to have a discussion like this, but people need to be specific about what exactly they're referring to. When I say "avoid paying tax", do I mean using legal methods to pay less tax or do I mean not reporting my real earnings to Revenue?

And before you haul me in front of the red alter Komrade, I'm very much of the opinion that most (all?) countries tax laws are fundamentally crap and in need of a major overhaul. It should not be possible for massive companies to pay such small amounts of tax. The percentage tax you pay should not be inversely related to your income.

BUT if you want to have an in-depth discussion about something, you need to establish what exactly you're discussing.

karma_

talking_walnut wrote: »

Are semantics not fundamental to this discussion? Before you can work to change something you need to establish exactly what you're trying to change. Otherwise we're just trashing around in the dark, making loud noises.

Closing those loopholes would be a good start, never mind the defense of semantics. 'Semantics are fundamental'... hahahahahaha good one

K-9

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's another talking point that people always bring up in tax evasion/avoidance debates: "Stopping it will never happen, so don't try...resistance is futile."

Western nations pretty much control the global financial network - and can stomp on entire countries (e.g. Russia) whenever politicians are sufficiently pissed off with that country.

There is already the level of influence and co-ordination being exerted right now, to make it happen if those efforts were applied to this problem. There is nothing stopping them using this power and influence, to kill tax havens, and to kill tax evasion/avoidance.

What is it actually you want, in practical terms?

talking_walnut

karma_ wrote: »

talking_walnut wrote: »

Are semantics not fundamental to this discussion? Before you can work to change something you need to establish exactly what you're trying to change. Otherwise we're just trashing around in the dark, making loud noises.

Closing those loopholes would be a good start, never mind the defense of semantics. 'Semantics are fundamental'... hahahahahaha good one

Can you please explain exactly how you close loopholes without an exact definition of what the problem is? I always thought loopholes are generally a result of people exploiting incomplete definitions or ambiguity in wordings.

By 'semantics are fundamental' I mean that we can only accurately discuss something if we both know (and agree upon) exactly what we're discussing. Otherwise loopholes might appear.....

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

Ah yes, a nice strawman on a lovely day.

These are of course completely different scenarios. Since murder is an assault on an individual causing direct suffering, whether it is legal or not does not impact on its morality. A better example to try and trip me up on would have been the legality of spousal rape. But since that too is an assault causing direct suffering, the morality of it too is unrelated to its legality.

Paying your tax does not fall into this bracket. When a society has created a legal framework which mandates a minimum level of taxation to be paid in order to fund that society, it is immoral to not pay that level of taxation. To make your contribution to society.

That's the fundamental of what you're saying. And me too.

And this is exactly what these companies and individuals are doing - paying the minimum level of taxation mandated by law. Therefore they are not doing anything immoral.

I'm going to use the same argument again - you claim your tax credits. You are reducing the tax you have to pay through legal methods. Are you being immoral? Why are you not forgoing your tax credits and paying what you should pay? And I know your answer is going to boil down to the amount of money you earn, but then your argument is that people who earn more money should be held to a higher moral standard than those who don't. Which is nonsense of course.

If the amount of taxation being collected is lower than necessary, it is not beholden onto the individual to volunteer to pay more, but on the state to redefine the minimum payable to meet society's needs. Be that through direct increases or legal measures to redirect the flow of funds.

We really need to put to tax credits argument to bed. I get a tax credit without doing anything. There is no way to not get it.

Tax avoidance implies an action, and it is by and large an action to avoid tax by using loopholes in the law or using foreign companies, or tax havens. It's not the standard deductions.

The legislators create the tax laws on the assumption that people play fairly, when they don't the spirit of the law is compromised.

seamus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

We really need to put to tax credits argument to bed. I get a tax credit without doing anything. There is no way to not get it.

Tax avoidance implies an action, and it is by and large an action to avoid tax by using loopholes in the law or using foreign companies, or tax havens. It's not the standard deductions.

The legislators create the tax laws on the assumption that people play fairly, when they don't the spirit of the law is compromised.

OK, let me frame my point in a different way.

KPMG approach you and tell you that for the price of €100 a year, they can cut your tax bill in half. The specifics are irrelevant as far as you're concerned. It's all legal and above board. Pay KPMG €100 and your tax reduces by 50%.

You'd avail of it. If you say you wouldn't then I'm no longer going to take you seriously.

Where are you drawing the line here between "it wouldn't be immoral if I did it, but it's immoral when rich people do it"?

KingBrian2

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What are you talking about? Saving small change is tax evasion?

The whole premise of the argument put forward is only the rich and powerful evade taxation usually through complex arrangement and while that is true is specific instances tax evasion happens in all areas of society. Engaging in criminal activity such as counterfeit and withdrawing small amounts and sending it overseas is another pernicious form of tax evasion. The notion that the large Pharmaceutical or Microsoft factory is weakening the tax intake for this country is nonsense. Go ask Bill Gates if he is paying the Irish tax rate your not going to get the same answer as your man from Ballymun.

20Cent

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The whole premise of the argument put forward is only the rich and powerful evade taxation usually through complex arrangement and while that is true is specific instances tax evasion happens in all areas of society. Engaging in criminal activity such as counterfeit and withdrawing small amounts and sending it overseas is another pernicious form of tax evasion. The notion that the large Pharmaceutical or Microsoft factory is weakening the tax intake for this country is nonsense. Go ask Bill Gates if he is paying the Irish tax rate your not going to get the same answer as your man from Ballymun.

Wtf are you on about?