Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

https://theconversation.com/these-fi...x-havens-79555

We found that a handful of big countries – the Netherlands, the UK, Switzerland, Singapore and Ireland – serve as the world’s conduit OFCs. Together, these five conduits channel 47% of corporate offshore investment from tax havens, according to the data we analysed.

The Netherlands leads the pack with 23%, followed by the UK (14%), Switzerland (6%), Singapore (2%) and Ireland (1%).

Those damned Dutch Anglo-Saxons

Of course the EU see it differently
https://www.theguardian.com/business...rsey-on-notice

Experts eh !!!

Yep.... Dutch are Saxons too.
I worked several years for a Dutch enterprise... they don't like to pay taxes.
In fact that's even worse... Dutch do not like to pay for everything.

Finally, the only fair people in Europe were the Greeks, who didn't hide anything about the fact they didn't like to pay their taxes.

Originally Posted by Wendigo

The UK chose to officially opt out of certain rules which is more honest (in some ways) than ignoring them, yet even we chose to fine traders for displaying imperial measurements as well as metric I use both so have no issues but many older people (like my mother) still cannot get their head round grams & kgs etc.

Imperial has to disappear. It's one more time the symbol of a old-fashionned monarchy.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Imperial has to disappear. It's one more time the symbol of a old-fashionned monarchy.

Does it? That will be a matter for us rather than for the EU and the ECJ. I don't expect lb, oz and fl oz to be restored as mainstream measures because two generations have grown up with kg, g and cc as their standard measures. We buy petrol in litres now but we still think of fuel economy in miles per gallon and most of us [the ones who aren't illiterate and innumerate] can convert from litres to gallons. 1 gallon = 4.545 litres / 1 litre =0.22 gallons. We have never adopted kilometres and I doubt that we will, though all British speedometers are also denominated in klicks, and we can easily convert, one mile being 1.6 kilometers.

We change. We adapt. Our metrification process pre-dates the EU and is still going on. But we honour the past; we don't reject it.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Imperial has to disappear. It's one more time the symbol of a old-fashionned monarchy.

Never, the Empire will strike back

Sorry could not resist that, but I will always buy my milk daily in pints from my local milkman off a local dairy and have my beer in pints. I'll never fathom why some want to change things

The metric system is so boring, you get no jokes like

Pound o' fillet ? ..... pound you don't
You cheeky git, I'll give you a couple of acres.
I've got a sore foot ..... call that a foot ?
How far is Scotland Yard? about three feet

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by ********

Right, and Apple was ordered to pay Ireland billions of Euros in back taxes last year.

The EU is clamping down on it, and now the UK is getting all pissy because once it leaves it won't be able to get exemptions and shape rules to sheild its own tax havens.

You appear to struggle to differentiate between the UK Government and the British people.

I'd bet most Brits would like to see companies adhere more to the same taxation laws that we do however we all know the difference between tax evasion and avoidance, companies exploit loopholes in laws written by "experts", many of whom we can assume were not just stupid but had some vested financial interests in creating those loopholes.

Despite what you probably think you know, no one actually knows how this will play out. I'm still a "pint" glass half full person so I veer towards hoping the end result of any changes will work out better for UK taxpayers.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Define, please.

Still waiting to be told all about it. We provide a politically and socially stable business environment here and a tax jurisdiction which is consistent and a government which is subject to the rule of law. An awful lot of the tax evasion comes from the Netherlands providing the means for companies to make profits in the UK and then export them to a non-tax jurisdiction; Starbucks were not the only ones. The European Commission has connived at this: So I really do question this Goebbels Big Lie approach to our discussion. I think we ought to have a factually informed discussion instead.

A 'punishment' that gives the Netherlands bonus

Coffee and taxes

OPINIECurieus: The Netherlands is being punished with Starbucks by the Commission with ... the collection of taxes.

By: Rutger Hagen Sebastiaan Wijsman researchers Political Economy at KU Leuven 23 October 2015, 02:00
****
https://s.vk.nl/s-a4168855/
This week, the European Commission tapped the Netherlands, because it gave Starbucks coffee chain 'unauthorized' tax benefits. The Netherlands must still collect the lost millions now. Where a punishment generally has to be preventive and corrective, it in this case provides the treasury with a bonus. The Netherlands is rewarded once more as a tax haven.

Starbucks uses, together with companies such as Ikea and Amazon, the Dutch tax system for years to pay as little tax as possible. Whether this use is also abusive was answered yes by the European Commission in the case of Starbucks yesterday.

More than a year ago, Brussels started a large-scale investigation into Fiat in Luxembourg and Starbucks in the Netherlands, which apparently would receive state aid through a detour. Starbucks, with the approval of the Dutch tax authorities, unlawfully diverts large sums of money to sister companies located in Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In return, they receive services and goods, but they pay way too much for that. This artificially lowers the profit of Starbucks and requires less tax to be paid.

Windfall for the state treasury
*Margrethe Vestager.
Margrethe Vestager. © EPA
The EU, through the Euro commissioner Vestager (Competition), informed the Netherlands that it should be ashamed of the agreements that the tax authorities made with the group, as the Volkskrant read. Whether the Dutch State is really blatant on the jaws remains to be seen.

The Commission obliges Starbucks to transfer the tax payments that it has so far escaped to the Dutch tax authorities. This amount can amount to 30 million euros and thus provides a nice windfall for the state treasury. In addition to the years of tax revenues and employment that the Netherlands obtained through the presence of Starbucks, the Netherlands also gets a little extra.

With this the Commission acts as if Starbucks is a Dutch company that has to pay tax in the Netherlands anyway. However, it is overlooked that without the unauthorized construction Starbucks would probably never have settled in the Netherlands. The Netherlands is rewarded with the penalty of compulsory collection of the missed payments. As if you have to stay behind as a country for punishment, but the teacher treats you to cola and chips.

Encouragement prize
A solution to this perverse incentive is the imposition of European fines equal to or higher than the tax to be collected

The European Commission's ruling can thus actually be seen as an incentive prize, in which countries are rewarded for conducting tax rules with questionable morals. It remains to be seen whether European countries feel compelled by this ruling to adjust their policies.

A solution to this perverse incentive is the imposition of European fines equal to or higher than the tax to be collected. According to European regulations, this is not yet possible and political support for adjustment is lacking. Perhaps the recent statements by the Commission increase the support for this. Until that time, due to the current agreements with Boeing, Apple and Google, there is still a lot of 'lost' tax to be collected for the Netherlands.

~ source: De Volksrant

If the proposal is to victimise Great Britain by sabotaging her financial and banking sector as a punishment for financial wrongdoing of which other EU members are more guilty than is Great Britain, then that is an aggressive act, unjust and contemptible, and Britain will be within her rights to retaliate. This is not a sensible place where anyone should want to go; but we can go there if our former EU partners choose it.

If the point is to actually address tax evasion by major global corporations, Britain has some compelling reasons to need to get on board; if that's really what this is about. Apart from wanting to avoid unnecessary damage to her financial trade, Britain has also experienced wholesale exporting of her domestic tax revenues as an outflow to tax havens, many of which are not Crown Colonies by the way. Is this something worth talking about, or not really?

We shall see.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

You appear to struggle to differentiate between the UK Government and the British people.

I'd bet most Brits would like to see companies adhere more to the same taxation laws that we do however we all know the difference between tax evasion and avoidance, companies exploit loopholes in laws written by "experts", many of whom we can assume were not just stupid but had some vested financial interests in creating those loopholes.

Despite what you probably think you know, no one actually knows how this will play out. I'm still a "pint" glass half full person so I veer towards hoping the end result of any changes will work out better for UK taxpayers.

Did I told in my posts before of a different thing?

I didn't told of (I have to estimate) of 85 to 90 % of the UK-tax-payers who have not a nut of a chance to use any tax loopholes.

I was talking of people (for example), who are building a cellar under their houses / estates in the centre of London in multi storey to a water-park with sauna and relaxing zones or to real home cinemas with a 20 m² linen screen and a wine cellar. Allowable !
These people I do mean who are shovelling the money to tax havens.

And I doubt that those tax loopholes are accidental, they are deliberate.
That's also guilty fo my own country with one of the most complicate tax system. WORLDWIDE !!!

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by ********

The British government understands that some territories base their economies on being tax havens. If they can't be tax havens any more they become expensive problems for the government as their economies collapse. So the British government blocks any attempts by the EU to fix the loopholes that allow them to operate, and opposes any investigations into their behaviour.

Since the British government doesn't want to have a say in how the EU conducts its affairs after Brexit, clearly the EU is under no obligation to allow British tax havens to continue fleecing its citizens of tax revenue.

Some crazy people think that the EU will allow it to get access to the UK financial sector. They are fools, the EU considers its principals to greatly outweigh the benefits of that access. And besides, with UK companies already moving to the EU to retain single market access, it has tangible benefits for them.

Before you suggest a "creative solution", perhaps you could actually suggest one that doesn't screw the EU while hugely benefitting the UK.

Will you advocate blacklisting the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Ireland and Malta as well? Not to mention Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Cyprus and others. The EU is not too proud to allow terms for trade in services with any of these. If you do not advocate blacklisting these countries then your grounds for blacklisting Britain are spurious and your argument is sheer hypocrisy, merely a pretext for a malicious economic sanction against Britain.

You speak rather fancifully of "creative solutions" to which I have never referred. I have suggested a rational and fair-minded negotiation. If that is a problem, then the Brexit talks are a waste of time anyway and we can concentrate on life without the EU and on finding ways to piss in the EU's coffee. We're good at that; ask the Russians.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Will you advocate blacklisting the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Ireland and Malta as well? Not to mention Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Cyprus and others. The EU is not too proud to allow terms for trade in services with any of these. If you do not advocate blacklisting these countries then your grounds for blacklisting Britain are spurious and your argument is sheer hypocrisy, merely a pretext for a malicious economic sanction against Britain.

You speak rather fancifully of "creative solutions" to which I have never referred. I have suggested a rational and fair-minded negotiation. If that is a problem, then the Brexit talks are a waste of time anyway and we can concentrate on life without the EU and on finding ways to piss in the EU's coffee. We're good at that; ask the Russians.

It is anything else than expedient pointing with your fingers on other countries; who are worse than your own government.
(You can mention them too, that's OK.)

I remember my Grandma as I came home from school as a boy with a "5" (second worse result here) in a -for example- a dictation exercise in German, finding the excuse that "Peter" had a "6" (worst result). She said: "Puh., it is absolutely out of my interest that anyone else was worse than you have been, I'm only interested in the boys and girls who had got a better result than you have got !"
Got me ?

Is the UK (Germany too !!!) so rich, that they can forgo on tax billions in fortune of a few rich, also with increasing debts, or isn't this a slap in the face of several millions of poor people in the UK.

I really can't defend a few rich and companies who are very "creative" in their tax declaration in the UK as I couldn't in Germany.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

It is anything else than expedient pointing with your fingers on other countries; who are worse than your own government.
(You can mention them too, that's OK.)

I remember my Grandma as I came home from school as a boy with a "5" (second worse result here) in a -for example- a dictation exercise in German, finding the excuse that "Peter" had a "6" (worst result). She said: "Puh., it is absolutely out of my interest that anyone else was worse than you have been, I'm only interested in the boys and girls who had got a better result than you have got !"
Got me ?

Is the UK (Germany too !!!) so rich, that they can forgo on tax billions in fortune of a few rich, also with increasing debts, or isn't this a slap in the face of several millions of poor people in the UK.

I really can't defend a few rich and companies who are very "creative" in their tax declaration in the UK as I couldn't in Germany.

The point which I make is about fair play. If the UK is to be singled out and penalised and others are to get a pass for the exact self-same behaviour, then this is self evidently unjust. But I propose the theory that none of this is really about tax evasion or anything which Britain has ever done, except that:

1. Others in the EU, notably France and Germany, covet the UK's financial services sector and would like to use Brexit as an excuse to compete against the UK in an abusive and discriminatory way.
2. Unlike the trade in goods, the balance of trade in services favours the UK rather than the EU, and here is where the EU can strike malignantly and punish the UK for choosing to Leave.

It would be nice to be mistaken about this, but I don't think I am. Should the progress or non-progress of the negotiation substantiate my interpretation, then that will (IMHO) be the time for the UK to take steps which the EU will not like. Unless the EU is willing to play fair with the UK, the UK has nothing to gain by playing fair with the EU.

Britain decided to go for a Brexit, in fact I believe a hard Brexit. Well, we have to follow through with Britain's wishes to leave the European Union and we have to be firm. If not we will put into question the EU's principles - meaning other countries, other parties might get the idea to want to leave the European Union, to get supposed benefits, and at no inconvenience or with no rules.

"Being firm means ensuring that Europe can maintain its principles, and especially its four freedoms, free movement (of people). There must be a threat, a risk, a price, otherwise we will be in negotiations that cannot end well. ~ Francois Hollande

Perhaps I am wrong. It would be nice to be wrong about this. But if it does turn out that the EU thinks that it will shit on Britain and nothing bad will happen, then that is a very silly mistake. Msr Hollande's hard Brexit would hurt many others, not the UK only, and the UK might not be one hurt most. On the whole I honestly think Britain has shown good faith in these talks and has a right to expect good faith in return; if that is denied, then the name of the game inevitably changes.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The point which I make is about fair play...

1. Others in the EU, notably France and Germany, covet the UK's financial services sector and would like to use Brexit as an excuse to compete against the UK in an abusive and discriminatory way...

No, the UK are notorious tax-haven cheaters, everyone knows it, and there's no question. Why do you think all the rogues are in London -- for the food & weather?


Your problem with the EU in this respect is that they will stop this corruption & illegality, and you know it