UK 'a tax haven for multinationals' (2014)
bbc.com
bbc.com
The Square Mile - 'City of London' - is like a country within a country too, so lots of strange finance things go on with London being one big black hole that money orbits, mysteriously.
This is how Britain punches above its weight to make London a 'world city' as far as global capitalism is concerned. This has been going on for centuries.
Tories are all about extracting wealth through property and money management (tax avoidance and money laundering are forms of asset management really).
Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Jersey, Isle of Man, and Bermuda is the full list I think.
Makes statements from Cameron on the topic especially hypocritical.
Cyprus and Malta aren't even tax havens.
Is there a better approach than collecting taxes?
What if inflation was used as a tax (printing money)?
A alternative system to taxes would be to demand payment whenever someone uses a state resource. A shop uses roads to have goods delivered, so they should pay a percentage to the state. Customers use the road to travel to the shop, so a small price is paid by the shop to the government per customer. If someone don't want to use the roads, they are free to buy the land necessary and build their own road system.
A factory has also transported goods and employees traveling to work, but they also uses the public education that those employees has. That mean for each hired employee, the factory should pay the relative price as compensation to the state. If a factory don't want to hire state educated citizen, they are free to find a workforce elsewhere.
A internet service sends bits traveling in copper and fiber that goes through state owned land. A price per bit then is reasonable. Same goes to radio waves traveling through state owned air space. If someone don't want to pay, they are free to build their own network.
Then there is the protection racket where police and military prevents theft. Those costs has to be recovered, so a monthly price in relation to the assets being protected sounds perfectly reasonable. If someone don't want to pay, the military can always go and make a visit.
Another approach is to lower taxes and create less of an incentive to circumvent them in the first place...
Its pretty easy to get residence in a non-EU country and then reclaim the VAT when you return 'home'. Your 'non-EU' country can even be as close as Jersey.
The government certainly doesn't need taxes to create money to pay for things.
If you understand what I'm getting at.
- Born in Russia
- Speaks Russian
- Holds or used to be holding Russian passport
- Does not really consider oneself Russian or answers "I'm Russian, but"
- Does not respect Russians, not really, but knows what's better for them
- Probably has ancestors who were important Soviet officials, often in some now-independent Republics
- Liberal political outlook but ends up backing Putinism when acting
- Probably owns something in London, Miami, Nice
- Family members living in aforementioned locations
- Probably sits in government or duma or connected to such officials
- In a position for which it's hard to reason if they are competent and how their life trajectory landed them there
That's the people who run & own Russia for all its sorry state.
Wrong comparison. A politician is to government what a CEO is to a company. Loads of CEOs make terrible decisions to appease the stock market short-term, then leave the company before shit hits the fan. Replace "CEOs" with "prime ministers" and "stock market" with "electorate". Human nature is what it is.
The point is, these executives are not living in Ireland or Panama but in the valley or some highly developed country in Europe. So while the enjoy the benefits of those countries, the want to avoid paying taxes.
No one has anything against people who want to enjoy Irish tax laws who move to Ireland. Or people who want to have a company in Panama to move to Panama.
Not to mention that executives don't "have" companies, shareholders do.
You can twist my words to "Is it wrong for Toyota to open a subsidiary in the US?" as you like, it doesn't change the point.
Some people bring arguments, some play word games "Not to mention that executives don't "have" companies"
1. Jobs
Around 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to British membership of the European Union’s single market – 1 in 10 British jobs.
2. Exports & investment
The EU buys over 50 per cent of UK exports (54 per cent of goods, 40 per cent of services). Over 300,000 British companies and 74 per cent of British exporters operate in other EU markets. American and Asian EU firms build factories in Britain because it is in the single market.
3. Trade
The EU negotiates trade agreements with the rest of the world. Outside the EU Britain would have to renegotiate trade deals alone. While the EU is the world’s largest market, a UK outside the EU would not be a high priority for other counties to negotiate a trade deal.
4. Consumer clout
British families enjoy lower mobile phone roaming charges, lower credit card fees, cheaper flights and proper compensation when flights are delayed or cancelled. These sorts of benefits could not be achieved by Britain alone.
13. Research funding
The UK is the second largest beneficiary of EU research funds, and the British Government expects future EU research funding to constitute a vital source of income for our world-leading universities and companies.
A Brexit could mean that there will be increased taxes on all of this to compensate from these lost advantages, which will surely translate to increased corporate taxes.
You say other countries are constantly pushing, but Ireland was only recently bailed out by exactly those other Eurozone countries, and even in that precarious situation, Ireland was not forced to change its tax rates.
But I really doubt Obama rationales have anything to do with that.
https://theintercept.com/2015/05/12/cant-read-tpp-heres-huge...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/24/barack-obama-...
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations...