Senate Panama Papers: A World-Spanning Financial Scandal

Also here's a question for you guys:

How many of you who are angry now own the following:

an iPhone?
an iPod?
an iPad?
an iMac?
A Mac desktop?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/apples-803-million-australian-tax-bill-revealed-20150126-12yrqq.html

Apple, an American company, paid AU$80mil in tax in Australia. They made profits of $6bn. Their profits are all booked to Apple's parent company in Ireland. The company tax rate is around 30% here.

This is a problem. A deep problem. A problem of massive tax entitlements being hidden and undermining the capacity of the state to use the taxation revenue on essential services.

David Cameron owned a parcel of shares in Blairmore, a Panama domiciled fund. He bought them in 2007, sold in 2010. Profit was £19,000. According to the official releases, there was no CGT liability but Mr Cameron paid tax on earnings in the UK.

If Mr Cameron's tax liablity was £X, and would be £X if the company was domiciled in Britain or in Panama, then Mr Cameron paid... £X in tax.

You are angry, people, over absolutely nothing. And if you use an Apple device, golly you're a bit of a hypocrite aren't you?

 

PG, I absolutely own that I'm getting angry with people. I am. It's borderline baiting that people would remain deaf, blind and dumb to the facts so they can indulge the kind of irrational prejudice we would all mock when we see it in a creationist but that does not give me licence to be as I've been.

I will make an effort to be nicer. It will be a struggle but I'll do it.

 

Please, you wish this was the case.

1. Several people materially misunderstand the nature of such investments and, through a combination of broad ignorance of the mechanisms involved, conflate a number of issues into one, and
2. Ender Sigh is annoyed that people are unable to deal in the properly contextualised facts when assessing the situation.

In order for there to be an ethical conundrum there would have to be a point at which Mr Cameron's activities were ethically compromised.

Mr Cameron invested in a fund where the investment vehicle itself has been domiciled in a tax haven, meaning the fund's operating costs are lower and investors profit more.

As per the piece in which Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull was savagely gummed by ineffectual Labor senators, you will fund a number of public retirement funds, superannuation and pension funds etc, invest in vehicles domiciled in tax havens. This actually benefits those investors, not all of whom are wealthy.

Mr Cameron, had he taken steps to hide his investment or, had he profited in a manner that legally but dishonestly reduced or extinguished a UK liability, would be ethically compromised.

Nobody in possession of the facts has seriously suggested an ethical compromise.

 

I don't think it is that odd. I think Ender's frustration exemplifies the issue, which is the general public see offshoring and exotic taxation structures as a way of avoiding tax even if you don't end up avoiding tax. If a political leader is preaching austerity and transparency as public policy then they have to avoid appearing like hypocrites. So even if they aren't actually acting hypocritically they may appear to be because of their tax arrangements which only 2% of the population actually understand. I'm actually not disagreeing with Ender I'm just making the point that I think political leaders don't have the luxury of behaving like normal citizens because of who they are and what they represent.

 

But in that instance there's very little Cameron could have done, because had it become known at arms length from the Panama Papers scandal then there would be no outrage.

He wasn't even required to divest himself of the shares - if you look at Malcolm's register of pecuniary interests he hasn't.

What Mr Cameron is being judged by is the standards of an angry mob, which should call to mind:



"If Mr Cameron bought and sold shares from an overseas fund, but paid tax in the UK on profits, he weighs as much as a duck and is a tax cheat!"

I don't know how bad corporate tax avoidance is elsewhere but it really grinds my gears because it's so widespread here (hi, Google. Hi Apple). And so, people wasting their time on a non-issue... ugh. Do your research, get your facts, then get angry guys. Not the other way around.

EDIT: And if we're being honest, Mr Cameron is already judged as guilty by many of you because he's a Tory and you're inherently suspicious.

 

As it happens, people differ on what ethical values are important. What might not even register for some people can be important to others. Last I checked, public message boards are one of the places we were allowed to air such disagreements. Really now, I know it can't be that devastating to discover.

 

Wocky, you entire premise is flawed which is why you're allowing a general ideological premise to guide you.

Why do you think Lost, dp4m and myself are stressing that offshore does not always mean illegal or unethical?

Because it's not, inherently. You need to contextualise the transaction and circumstances first, rather than treating a number of assumptions as given such as Mr Cameron unethically investing to avoid tax.

If you could demonstrate you understood this nuance, fine, but right now everything you've said collides rather violently with the facts and it becomes painfully clear that your intent is to judge all use of offshoring as inherently evil or without virtue/morals. Given it is a complex structure that can just as equally give rise to a distributed benefit to a number of prospective retirees as it can be used to hide taxable revenue streams, such a gesture is not especially robust or defensible.

Hence my comment. People who have experience or exposure to this practice are not the ones relying on broadstroke guilt-by-association to make their point.

I promise you, Mr Cameron? Done nothing wrong.

 

Look, I know it's very pleasing for you to be intellectually superior to every one here, but

1) I've gone over my posts in this thread and you will see that I only got involved to call you out on "illegal vs unethical". Prior to that post I had not commented on anything specific, except exchange two sentences with JoinTheSchwartz. The "unethical vs illegal" issue was, by the way, a discussion already opened by Wocky. I just agreed with him on the general notion that there is a difference and that it is important. I entered into an already ongoing discussion, I assumed you two had your facts straight, and I only commented on that narrow issue.

2) You go all cocaine-addict-defensive on me, and I make it clear that I know nothing about the Cameron case (which should have been a hint to you that I'm not debating particulars about his case, or him at all, but in general terms), and that in general I find the idea of a politician avoiding taxes displeasing, as they should be held to a higher standard. They're the ones collecting our taxes, after all.

3) You: £%&-% peasants, plebs, blue collar pitchforks #&+#:#" pathetic ingrates -&*%*& braincell deficient @#&()( must be because of your working class malnutrition, haha!
I'm exaggerating but you were being your usual self, only switched to the 'annoyed' setting.

4) Me: ?

Maybe I shouldn't have entered a discussion without having all the facts beforehand, but again, I was commenting in general terms and didn't see the need to research the specific incident regarding Mr. Cameron. I operated on the assumption that those already discussing before me have their facts in order. The way the discussion looked to me as I entered into it, based on the conversation you were already having was:

team Ender) he did nothing illegal
team Peasants) he did something unethical, regardless of illegality
team Ender) totally ignoring the distinction

I sided with not ignoring the distinction.


Also, since you were going on the assumption that I was discussing Cameron, at any point you could have just set me and the others straight with a simple sentence: "he paid taxes on his earnings, and he did so in the UK." Instead you gave walls of text peppered with insults and, honestly, who would read that? Who?

 

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...nancial-scandal.50039824/page-2#post-53439101

From that post:

"Having an interest in an investment that's domiciled in a tax haven does not automatically extinguish domestic tax liabilities so we need to be nuanced in our responses, for example."

I can certainly appreciate the ease with which one could simply say it was my fault - it's a bit lazy though.

I instead would suggest that as LostOnHoth put it: "I think Ender's frustration exemplifies the issue, which is the general public see offshoring and exotic taxation structures as a way of avoiding tax even if you don't end up avoiding tax. If a political leader is preaching austerity and transparency as public policy then they have to avoid appearing like hypocrites. So even if they aren't actually acting hypocritically they may appear to be because of their tax arrangements which only 2% of the population actually understand. I'm actually not disagreeing with Ender I'm just making the point that I think political leaders don't have the luxury of behaving like normal citizens because of who they are and what they represent."

There is a broad:

1) Lack of understanding about a very esoteric means of wealth management, used by probably nobody here directly
2) Suspicion of that framework, with an assumption it must be bad, wicked, unethical etc
3) General bias against Mr Cameron as innocence-until-proven-unethical-or-guilty because he is a moneyed Tory

Or, simply put, people like their biases and anything that confronts that bias rather than conforming to it is dismissed, regardless of whether facts come into play or not (see also: the other users starting with V and their stances).

Moreover, as you can see from the first two-three pages of this thread my tone was markedly different. So, I doubt I could have set you straight, any of you, because you were too into conspiratorial thought mode. Most of you behaved like a Creationist would. Not the progressives you wish to be seen as.

We have actual evidence of wrongdoing, and instead of discussing that or the wider problem of how Apple, Google etc dodge taxes... we go after a Conservative politician because innate hostility.

It was pretty shameful.

 

This is from page 2. The first time I addressed you was in page 5, and that was a snide offhand observation that had nothing to do with anything. The first time I addressed the issue proper was in page 6. Do you honestly expect me to read the entire thread to get to comment on something?

Granted. I should have read the entirety of the thread thoroughly with an emphasis of you and team "we work in finance" 's page-long dissertation posts about the minutia of foreign transactions and worldwide tax policies. It's in my reading list, I'll set a reminder by the night stand. My bad.

Ah, yes. The post on this page, 5 posts before this one. After two pages of rambling, someone explains things in a neat, short, concise way and, surprise surprise, it's not you.

If you're referring to your own demeanor, yes. I was puzzled, more than anything.

 

"Cocaine addict defensive"

 

VVM, so

1. Page 2 wasn't concise?
2. Why did Losts post not put the issue to rest?

I think it might be dangerously close to the point where you need to concede you lot have a preconceived notion that, whilst misguided in this instance, nonetheless gave rise to a set of assumptions.

 

1) Page 2 was, as you have correctly ascertained, page 2. I addressed you at page 6. I did not think to refer to the previous 5 pages before making a general value statement unrelated to any specifics, no. Nor should I need to, and I think you know that.

2) The issue is at rest. It is for me, anyway. It has been for this entire page. Incidentally, Lost's post to which you're referring is also on THIS page, long after the two pages of us talking past each other. I can only wish he had intervened earlier, say, instead of your posts.

I am guilty of assumptions that I have repeatedly admitted to. But there was plenty of assuming going on across the board, let's not pretend otherwise. Our entire exchange was based on assumptions and strawmanning, on both ends. Frankly, your tone in this very post is still presumptuous.

The difference is that you assume while also being obnoxious, which is another matter unto itself. But for now, I'm not interested in dragging this discussion out any further.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/10/david-cameron-tax-return-analysis

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/09/david-cameron-questions-gift-mother

I think this answers your deep moral questions, Wocky.

And now onto legitimate areas:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sergei-roldugin-panama-papers-donations-putin

Adorable. Only in Russia.

 

Well, they have a point - no US politicians were implicated.

All Russian know, politician is always corrupt. So vhy this hef no Amerikans, if Amerikan politician corrupt?

Actually, is obvious. CIA.

 

They don't even have a pecuniary interests register. I mean. I don't even.

Like.

How. How do you not?

Proof constitutional monarchy > republic if you ask me.

 

Actually a lot of Americans who live abroad long term are being forced to give up their US citizenship because of their rules on tax. Not wealthy Americans, mind you - a lot of middle class ones, because the tax code requires you to always have a liability in the US which may be extinguished if you pay more tax in your country of residence than you would in America.