Pandora Papers

[BillyStubbsTears]

Firstly, they give more evidence on what we already know about Blair. That he's a grasping, hypocritical t**t.

But he's a private citizen who has g been involved in Govt for nearly a decade and a half.

What they are showing about donors to the Tory party is the sort of thing that used to finish politicians off, back in the day when we used to give a shit. A string of Russians who have given massive (like: MASSIVE) donations to the Tories and have unfettered access to senior ministers look to be up to their necks in graft and corruption. And in some cases, still linked to the Kremlin.

Absorb that, then remember that this PM gave a peerage to the billionaire son of a KGB colonel. And remember that when Parliament's own security and intelligence committee said there was strong indications that Russia was interfering in our elections, and expressed incredulity that there had been no attempt by Govt to investigate, this PM said it was all fine and he hadn't set up an investigation to look for evidence because he hadn't seen any evidence. (I know. I have to double check every time I mention it that a UK PM actually did say that because it beggars belief.)

There's a thread to all of this that stinks to high heaven. And no-one seems to care anymore.

[normal rules]

Let’s be honest, Blair is guilty of tax avoidance. And who wouldnt if they could get away with it. His problem is he is a it too high profile to have the finger pointed.
There are companies in the uk such as the likes of Ernst Young, Deloitte , PWC and KPMG that have made billions by advising their clients exactly how to avoid paying tax. It’s Completely legal. The uk tax system allows for it with the many hundreds of loopholes it creates.
Tax evasion of course is another matter,

[redwine]

The only question for me is how much more f**king money do they need.

[normal rules]

Blair is alleged to be worth around 60mil. His son is worth a lot more.

[BillyStubbsTears]

NR.

I accept that what Blair did was legal. I just think it is hypocritical of an ex-Labour PM to use loopholes in practice are not available to ordinary people. It does remind me why I left the Labour party when he was leader.

[normal rules]

NR.

I accept that what Blair did was legal. I just think it is hypocritical of an ex-Labour PM to use loopholes in practice are not available to ordinary people. It does remind me why I left the Labour party when he was leader.

I was merely supporting your statement . Hypocritical is an understatement . Cherie will no doubt be bleating that their human rights have been abused in all this negative publicity.

[ravenrover]

And we haven't even mentioned Moggie yet in all this

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

NR.

I accept that what Blair did was legal. I just think it is hypocritical of an ex-Labour PM to use loopholes in practice are not available to ordinary people. It does remind me why I left the Labour party when he was leader.

It's funny I would agree.  The first thing I was taught on tax and law is the below;

Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow tax-payers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.

It changed my view of the whole thing and all Blair has done is the legal right he has.

But you make a great point that paying the right tax is a moral obligation in his position.

As for donations that's a very complex issue but it just cannot be right in politics worldwide to have the influence donors of all kinds have.

Let’s be honest, Blair is guilty of tax avoidance. And who wouldnt if they could get away with it. His problem is he is a it too high profile to have the finger pointed.
There are companies in the uk such as the likes of Ernst Young, Deloitte , PWC and KPMG that have made billions by advising their clients exactly how to avoid paying tax. It’s Completely legal. The uk tax system allows for it with the many hundreds of loopholes it creates.
Tax evasion of course is another matter,

Fair points in this.  What I would say is on the whole whilst yes these advisors (and I'm married to one) are excellent at finding loopholes, elements of the law to avoid tax, they are also predominantly ethical and will pay what is required if it's unavoidable including confessing to errors where they find them.  People often forget that point.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Precisely that BFYP.

"Legally acceptable" does not equal "Morally acceptable".

Regarding donors, the massive issue for me is that Russian kleptocrats keep on pouring money into the Tory party, and the Tory party keeps on turning a blind eye to what everyone else is screaming about regarding Russian behaviour. It is not irrelevant that the only leading world power that stood to gain from a weakening of both Britain and the EU is Russia.

It is starting to feel like hiding in plain site.

[albie]

What is "legal" is defined by statute, and governments can change that legal definition.

Blair and Brown had the chance to revise the terms of legality....they chose not to do so!
To then go on to exploit the loopholes left in place for personal profit shows the moral vacuum at the heart of new Labour.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No Albie, the real world doesn't work like that, much as you'd want it to.

Loopholes aren't left there deliberately. They are the result of conflicting requirements of different aspects of law. From what I can see of the Blair situation, the loophole emerged because:
a) Govt wants individuals to pay stamp duty as a means of damping down housing costs[1]and

b) Govt doesn't want companies to pay stamp duty on purchase of buildings because it would deptess genuine business investment.

Both of those aims are entirely sensible and defensible.

Blair abused the spirit of that by buying a house through a company, then living in it. Thereby avoiding stamp duty.

Now you might think there is a requirement on Govt to foresee every such loophole and close them. But that is a Herculean task, and any Govt has far more pressing issues to deal with. Like avoiding a Great Depression after a world banking crash.

So I'm not going to blame the Labour Govt for not spotting and closing that loophole. But I am going to blame Blair for being a hypocritical t**t in exploiting it. Notably, Brown hasn't done the same thing.

[normal rules]

NR.

I accept that what Blair did was legal. I just think it is hypocritical of an ex-Labour PM to use loopholes in practice are not available to ordinary people. It does remind me why I left the Labour party when he was leader.

It's funny I would agree.  The first thing I was taught on tax and law is the below;

Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow tax-payers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.

It changed my view of the whole thing and all Blair has done is the legal right he has.

But you make a great point that paying the right tax is a moral obligation in his position.

As for donations that's a very complex issue but it just cannot be right in politics worldwide to have the influence donors of all kinds have.

Let’s be honest, Blair is guilty of tax avoidance. And who wouldnt if they could get away with it. His problem is he is a it too high profile to have the finger pointed.
There are companies in the uk such as the likes of Ernst Young, Deloitte , PWC and KPMG that have made billions by advising their clients exactly how to avoid paying tax. It’s Completely legal. The uk tax system allows for it with the many hundreds of loopholes it creates.
Tax evasion of course is another matter,

Fair points in this.  What I would say is on the whole whilst yes these advisors (and I'm married to one) are excellent at finding loopholes, elements of the law to avoid tax, they are also predominantly ethical and will pay what is required if it's unavoidable including confessing to errors where they find them.  People often forget that point.

Unless you are the accountants who wrote off the audit for Patisserie Valerie, who just happened to miss an overvalue of £30 million and a £10 million overdraft.
I dread to think how they manage their clients tax affairs.

[normal rules]

What’s the betting the Russians backed cable under the channel gets passed for the go ahead in a few days ?

[BillyStubbsTears]

What’s the betting the Russians backed cable under the channel gets passed for the go ahead in a few days ?

You'd like to think even this lot would be shamed into reflecting on how that would look, given that the backer of that project appears to have a rather dodgy background and has given the thick end of a million quid to the Tories.

But given that they illegally gave planning permission for a development just days after the man behind that gave a big donation to the party, I wouldn't bet on it.

They are calculating that most voters don't care if our Govt is up for sale to the highest bidder. Maybe they are right.

[albie]

BST,

Well, Blubbery Stubbery, you have completely floored me with this;

"No Albie, the real world doesn't work like that, much as you'd want it to.

Loopholes aren't left there deliberately. They are the result of conflicting requirements of different aspects of law. From what I can see of the Blair situation, the loophole emerged because:

a) Govt wants individuals to pay stamp duty as a means of damping down housing costs[1]and

b) Govt doesn't want companies to pay stamp duty on purchase of buildings because it would depress genuine business investment.

Both of those aims are entirely sensible and defensible."

You do not seem to understand the primary purpose of government, which is to implement policy through the means available to secure change.
The real world works by changing the laws that enable your policy to take effect.

The reason that oligarchs launder money via the City of London is because the framework legislation enables off-shore activity as a means to hide identity and the flow of capital.
That is a political choice, to give preference to tax avoidance by the deliberate creation of opportunity to evade scrutiny.

The idea that different aspects of law have "accidentally" led to this is barking mad.
Loopholes are clearly there in order to facilitate financial chicanery....it is part of the sales pitch of the financial centre.

Off-Shore tax havens should be made illegal for purposes of interacting with the UK economy.

There are a number of measures available to reverse this position;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/13/stop-big-corporations-dodging-tax-avoidance-paradise-paper

I reckon the place of sale argument set out in the Guardian is worth following.
The scale of the problem is immense, and closing the door would bring big returns in Treasury income.

If your point (b) has legs, then why would anyone in the know buy a property under point (a)?
I don't see any reason why stamp duty should not apply to the sale, rather than the buyer.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

NR.

I accept that what Blair did was legal. I just think it is hypocritical of an ex-Labour PM to use loopholes in practice are not available to ordinary people. It does remind me why I left the Labour party when he was leader.

It's funny I would agree.  The first thing I was taught on tax and law is the below;

Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow tax-payers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.

It changed my view of the whole thing and all Blair has done is the legal right he has.

But you make a great point that paying the right tax is a moral obligation in his position.

As for donations that's a very complex issue but it just cannot be right in politics worldwide to have the influence donors of all kinds have.

Let’s be honest, Blair is guilty of tax avoidance. And who wouldnt if they could get away with it. His problem is he is a it too high profile to have the finger pointed.
There are companies in the uk such as the likes of Ernst Young, Deloitte , PWC and KPMG that have made billions by advising their clients exactly how to avoid paying tax. It’s Completely legal. The uk tax system allows for it with the many hundreds of loopholes it creates.
Tax evasion of course is another matter,

Fair points in this.  What I would say is on the whole whilst yes these advisors (and I'm married to one) are excellent at finding loopholes, elements of the law to avoid tax, they are also predominantly ethical and will pay what is required if it's unavoidable including confessing to errors where they find them.  People often forget that point.

Unless you are the accountants who wrote off the audit for Patisserie Valerie, who just happened to miss an overvalue of £30 million and a £10 million overdraft.
I dread to think how they manage their clients tax affairs.

Much like any profession there's always people who are essentially criminals and fraudulent. They make up a tiny percentage.

I've seen good audits, really bad audits and some that just weren't fit for purpose.  But it's a very different field to advisory and has actually to be seperate in most cases.

It is becoming tougher and tougher to complete an audit, they've tightened up massively after some big failures. But the onus should always be on the professionals working within companies to do their job legally and ethically or face consequences.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Albie have you ever thought what the impact of blocks on offshore companies would be?

BST is correct you can't close everything off its too complex and clever people will resolve it.

[idler]

The problem is why work for the government closing tax loopholes when you can earn far more advising clients how to exploit them?
Multinational companies must be spending billions between them and getting most if not all of it back in tax savings.

[SydneyRover]

There are a lot of people out there idler that want to close loopholes that want the banks to stop facilitating money laundering, the government has to drive it though. When the gov is happy with high property prices and is happy to take money from those doing it, what are
 the chances?

[albie]

Albie have you ever thought what the impact of blocks on offshore companies would be?

BST is correct you can't close everything off its too complex and clever people will resolve it.

Pud,

Did you read the Guardian link I posted?

It is not complex, there are a number of measures on the table to resolve this, but the political will is not there.

The truth is that we have a tax system that has grown piece by piece from the old economy, when the UK was a production and manufacturing base.

The modern UK economy is nothing like that, and the difference increases year on year.
Some tax takes, like Council Tax, are strongly regressive.

We need a root and branch overhaul, and base future taxation on progressive income tax, wealth tax (unearned income), and transaction tax based on UK economic activities.

Continuing with the same taxation system will transfer resources away from those at the lower end, the opposite of what should happen in my view.

[normal rules]

There are a lot of people out there idler that want to close loopholes that want the banks to stop facilitating money laundering, the government has to drive it though. When the gov is happy with high property prices and is happy to take money from those doing it, what are
 the chances?

I spent a little time in a previous life as a financial intelligence officer.
Every bank should have a person nominated as Anti money laundering officer. Their job is to check for suspicious activity on day to day accounts and report their findings to the NCA. Who then report to the policing area to which the suspicious activity falls Most high st banks do not have one. You might be lucky if there is one such person per banking area.
They pay lip service to it to be fair.
Because it doesn’t earn them money.
Banks are a bit like landlords if you like. They don’t care where the money comes from, as long as they get it.
Then there are estate agents, who, like football agents, are the real parasites on the high st. All those property deals shown on the panarama programme of multi billion pound property portfolios would have had estate agents raking in the dough on commission behind the scenes. You don’t hear of them reporting such suspicion though do you ? Because they don’t care. Just so long as they get paid.

[albie]

Interesting article from Peter Oborne (ex Telegraph journo) on the role of tax havens in the corruption of the political system;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/05/access-tory-party-tycoon-funders-pandora-papers

Once a politics undermined by this corruption, the only way to free things up is by anti-corruption reforms.
Saying it is "too complicated" is to collude with the fraud.

[normal rules]

This makes  good reading .

Keir Starmer’s Labour party is a manifestation of a “woke” metropolitan elite utterly alien to the “red wall” voters who flocked to the Tories at the last election.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Albie have you ever thought what the impact of blocks on offshore companies would be?

BST is correct you can't close everything off its too complex and clever people will resolve it.

Pud,

Did you read the Guardian link I posted?

It is not complex, there are a number of measures on the table to resolve this, but the political will is not there.

The truth is that we have a tax system that has grown piece by piece from the old economy, when the UK was a production and manufacturing base.

The modern UK economy is nothing like that, and the difference increases year on year.
Some tax takes, like Council Tax, are strongly regressive.

We need a root and branch overhaul, and base future taxation on progressive income tax, wealth tax (unearned income), and transaction tax based on UK economic activities.

Continuing with the same taxation system will transfer resources away from those at the lower end, the opposite of what should happen in my view.

Of course I read it. In my work I've learnt the press don't understand the complexities of business and financing all that well.

Yes there are some.tightenings to be made but to suggest they won't ever exist would be ludicrous. Clever people will always find ways around things.

[albie]

Pud,

That article is NOT a matter of press misunderstanding.
It is an opinion piece from one of the leading academic Tax Lawyers in the UK.

Secondly, "clever people" will only do what the system allows.
The EU are considering criminalising "enablers", those tax advisers who help wealthy clients game the system.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/crime/ending-the-shell-game-cracking-down-on-the-professionals-who-enable-tax-and-white-collar-crimes.htm
Extending liability to "enablers" alongside tax criminals would change the landscape.

These are not victimless crimes.
All those paying their dues are disadvantaged, and the poor are disproportionately impacted.

Take a look at coffers.eu, if you want to see the extent of the problem;
https://coffers.eu/
The section "Corporate Tax Haven Index" shows how British jurisdiction offers criminal laundering activities via off-shore havens.

Now if the EU are looking to clamp down, are you saying the UK should welcome tainted money as a business opportunity?

[SydneyRover]

Fingers crossed

''Why UK’s network of ‘Treasure Island’ tax havens is in trouble
The islands of Britain’s former empire have served as the premier jurisdiction for everyone from cash-rich Chinese officials to Russian oligarchs and Western firms seeking lower taxes — or complete secrecy''

''“This is a turning moment,” said Alex Cobham, chief executive of the Tax Justice Network, an advocacy group that campaigns against tax avoidance. “We’ll look back in five or 10 years and say: ‘Yes, that is when it shifted.'”

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/6/7/why-uks-network-of-treasure-island-tax-havens-is-in-trouble

[Sprotyrover]

Interesting stuff Sydders looks like Eire, Netherlands ,Luxembourg and the Swiss will be worst hit.

“The ones that have traditionally served the personal market – that is the palm tree market if you like – they are by and large going to get away with this,” said Richard Murphy, a chartered accountant and visiting professor in accounting at Sheffield University Management School.

“It is the large corporate locations like Luxembourg, like Ireland, like the Netherlands that are really going to be picking up the hit here,” he said.

[normal rules]

Papers reveal that Qatar royal family avoided 18.5 million pounds in stamp duty when they bought two of the most expensive homes in London.
Offshore accounting again. Totally “legal”.

[albie]

Interesting article on the role of the City of London in the Pandora scandal;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/pandora-papers-london-money-hub-gulf-rulers-super-rich

Legacy of empire evolved into laundering of the proceeds of crime!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Strange that Johnson's been so quiet on the Pandora Papers. It now appears from them that the luxury villa he's currently holidaying at, lent to him by a man he put in the House of Lords, is owned through a company based in a tax haven in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

But yeah, all politicians are as bad as each other.