Panama Papers

Probably not and that's the main problem. Unless you're a Chinese gov official and it goes against party policy or if it gets around sanctions...

it's not necessarily illegal to move huge chunks of money into legitimate offshore businesses that serve no purpose other than to avoid paying compulsary taxes in the countries in which the business primarily operates. The sole purpose is to avoid paying tax - hundreds of billions of pounds worth of tax. While not necessarily illegal, many might view this secretive financial practice to be highly unethical. Or absolutely morally wrong especially when compared with the billions of pounds of cuts to public spending and the political culture of shifting the blame for economic crises to the poor, disabled and immigrants.

How come it isn't more regulated by laws in various countries? Why is it "only unethical"?

i roll all my joints with panama papers

(apologies if joke has been made already)

I'm sure i'd be in court in a few months if I rang up HMRC and said "i'm not paying any tax, sorry"

It's sad as a small legit business does not get the chance to grow or make any money.

Maybe the only way something will be done about the system if everyone refuses to pay their tax. How does this kind of movement start rolling? ha

  On 4/7/2016 at 4:53 PM, perunamuussi said:

it's not necessarily illegal to move huge chunks of money into legitimate offshore businesses that serve no purpose other than to avoid paying compulsary taxes in the countries in which the business primarily operates. The sole purpose is to avoid paying tax - hundreds of billions of pounds worth of tax. While not necessarily illegal, many might view this secretive financial practice to be highly unethical. Or absolutely morally wrong especially when compared with the billions of pounds of cuts to public spending and the political culture of shifting the blame for economic crises to the poor, disabled and immigrants.

The sole purpose is not to avoid taxes in each and every instance. Some companies or individuals may have that ulterior motive but it may simply be a case of an entity needing secrecy regarding financial structures, sometimes it's just convenient for multinational assets that otherwise may be subject to double taxation. Lots of grey areas.

  On 4/7/2016 at 5:10 PM, Jev said:

How come it isn't more regulated by laws in various countries? Why is it "only unethical"?

the people that write the laws (or pay the people who write the laws) have made it so.

it's absolutely intentional

best government money can buy

  On 4/7/2016 at 5:10 PM, Jev said:

How come it isn't more regulated by laws in various countries? Why is it "only unethical"?

That my friend is the question. Sad world this is.

  On 4/7/2016 at 6:58 PM, bendish said:

 

  On 4/7/2016 at 5:10 PM, Jev said:

How come it isn't more regulated by laws in various countries? Why is it "only unethical"?

 

That my friend is the question. Sad world this is.

 

For a long time, people simply didn't know unless they were profiting themselves. It only became known widespread around the time of the collapse of '08. Since then, international governments have been talking about better and more unified taxation-rules. But international cooperation is a very slow process. Lots of different interests and potentially huge economic impacts for those smaller countries who provide these kinds of safe tax-havens.

And changing law just takes time.

But stuff certainly is changing. Example:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-allergan-m-a-pfizer-idUSKCN0X21NV

"Educated criminals work within the law"

(And write the laws in the first place)

  On 4/7/2016 at 4:27 PM, Jev said:

Being a total idiot on business law and economics in general, does being named in the documents necessarily mean that a person was into something illegal? I have read somewhere that not everything in the papers was illegal. Could somebody explain in a very simple manner?

From what I've heard so far, estimates are that 60% of the shell corporations named are involved in illegal activities.

Now Cameron admits his dad's company was involved in this stuff, his company didn't pay british tax for 30 years. He terminated the offshore company prior to becoming PM. Wasn't he denouncing this crap as "immoral" the other day?

Sure is fun to see them squirm. Make them squirm more!

Somebody call me when they roll out the guillotines, because it's about time

so just to be clear, this is a documentary about van halen's vacation?

Well-hung ghost blowjob

lol

  On 4/8/2016 at 4:19 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Well-hung ghost blowjob

I think I can remember how you've earned your best new member 2012 title.

/ambiguities intended

It'll blow over and little will change.

  On 4/8/2016 at 10:12 AM, tec said:

It'll blow over and little will change.

Is this a reference to well-hung ghost blowjob or he Panama papers? If the latter then I agree.

It amounts to little more the than a bit of egg on the culprit's face.

  On 4/7/2016 at 9:36 PM, chim said:

Now Cameron admits his dad's company was involved in this stuff, his company didn't pay british tax for 30 years.

Why should a company registered in a foreign country, with no operations at all in the UK, pay tax in the UK?

Obviously any UK resident people who are employed (or otherwise make money, via dividends or whatever) by said company should be paying UK income tax (and I don't think that's the case here), but aside from that I fail to see the controversy here.

Also, what does Cameron's dad's business have to do with Cameron?

Cameron inherited £300k tax free due to his fathers shady business