1

Les Beaucamps Boy

Are they trying to bolster their veiw of themselves or convince the rest of us? Cos the latter just ain’t happening.

Report abuse

3

Arnald

http://www.taxjournal.com/tj/articles/tax-haven-network-makes-uk-top-secrecy-jurisdiction-says-tjn-34401

So the City uses us and all our friends to be the worst secrecy jurisdiction around and we defend ourselves citing TIEAs!

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/10/18/offshore-lawyers-admit-that-tax-haven-claims-of-transparency-are-bunkum-as-some-of-us-have-argued-for-a-long-time/

Read the Cayman link if you can’t stomach Murphy.

Note that it’s lawyers, some from here that are saying these things.

Stop kidding about, eh?

Report abuse

5

Arnald

Toby
Because the tax take, democratically mandated within a jurisdiction, is not something that can be used in competition. The level should be defined with what, how much, and where public money ought to be spent. Governments should be elected with that at the core of their policy. People expect differently according to choice.

Jurisdictions are not companies trying to outstrip competitors in order to maximise shareholder value, they are places where people live, are educated, need care, feel happy. That’s why we have elections; to vote for something that delivers what a majority interprets through manifesto.

If an external jurisdiction then creates its own laws that enable an obvious and material denigration of that democratically mandated tax take, then what we see is, basically, an infringement of democracy.

Countries are not companies. Most people do not work for the tax planning industry. Most people, I am sure, would not vote for a tax planning industry party considering the race to the bottom that it entails for internal tax revenue.

We would vote for a vision that mixes both supporting an industry and delivering the kind of society that sits comfortably for the widest possible electoral catchment. That may put a scupper on some aspects of an industry, but in the long term at least it could be said it is democratic. We should be welcoming publicity that counters the industry’s claims. Have an open debate on the points. Let the people decide what’s best politically, instead of being told what is and what isn’t.

No one could argue then.

However, I can’t vote for an airline to provide me a free drink if they think that they can’t afford to do provide it if a rival has done the same. We have to like it or not fly.

So tax competition, unless it is supportable long term by the host (it never is by definition of competition. You can’t go below zero), is only viable within a very narrow band in order for jurisdictions not to have their democratic mandate eroded.

You can’t say that for coke v pepsi.

Or waitrose v marks

Report abuse