UK 'a tax haven for multinationals' (2014) • Hacker News Board

Re: UK 'a tax haven for multinationals' (2014)

#51

Post by icebraining » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

Ontheflyflyfly wrote: post #20

vixen99 wrote: post #6

Tangentially - if there's no tax rate competition which seems to be the desired goal of many, there's nothing to stop politicians continuing to bribe their electorate with bread and circuses paid for by that electorate's money. The gigantic debt mountains in the US and the EU demonstrate the degree to which they do that. And when it's all over, out of office, out of responsibility! Companies have of course to keep pr…

" if there's no tax rate competition" 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.

That's a novel position. So US companies, whose executives presumably live in the US, shouldn't open an EU subsidiary, and vice-versa? Is it wrong for Toyota to open a subsidiary in the US?

Not to mention that executives don't "have" companies, shareholders do.

Re: UK 'a tax haven for multinationals' (2014)

#52

Post by hackerboos » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 6:02 PM UTC

anexprogrammer wrote: post #50

return0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyprus, malta, seychelles ...

All independent nations with no legislative connection to London unlike the territories. Cyprus and Malta aren't even tax havens.

Cyprus was the preferred incorporation location for US companies doing business in the EU.

Re: UK 'a tax haven for multinationals' (2014)

#53

Post by return0 » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 8:43 PM UTC

anexprogrammer wrote: post #50

return0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyprus, malta, seychelles ...

All independent nations with no legislative connection to London unlike the territories. Cyprus and Malta aren't even tax havens.

Agreed, but it seems all those small countries occupied by the British ended up becoming low-tax jurisdictions attracting foreign investments. Cyprus & malta are popular destinations in europe for online businesses and royalties collection.

Re: UK 'a tax haven for multinationals' (2014)

#54

Post by pjc50 » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 9:28 PM UTC

dghughes wrote: post #35

loopbit wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot Gibraltar, but your point stands.

What about the City of London within London does it have separate banking rules?

The "city" as a social group has a lot of indirect influence. The City of London Corporation is an unusually-shaped local authority with a long history. It's not the banking regulator, that falls between the BoE and the FSA. The City does however have control of the anti-fraud police.

Re: UK 'a tax haven for multinationals' (2014)

#55

Post by nixisfun » Sun, Apr 24, 2016, 6:47 AM UTC

cylinder wrote: post #25

Theodores wrote: post #19

It is quite hard to think of a tax haven that is not part of the Commonwealth or former British Empire, Panama being one of the few. A true tax haven is a different thing to mechanisms like the 'Double Irish', seems UK PLC is getting even with that. 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 orbit…

Australia also has very lax money laundering laws, it is said that Mossack Fonseca would have faced less regulation being based in Australia vs Panama. Tories are all about extracting wealth through property and money management (tax avoidance and money laundering are forms of asset management really).

Australia has reasonably strong money laundering laws. Australia also has quite strong financial tracking via AUSTRAC and the big four banks. Do you have any sources?

Re: UK 'a tax haven for multinationals' (2014)

#56

Post by Ontheflyflyfly » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 4:31 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #51

Ontheflyflyfly wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" if there's no tax rate competition" 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.

That's a novel position. So US companies, whose executives presumably live in the US, shouldn't open an EU subsidiary, and vice-versa? Is it wrong for Toyota to open a subsidiary in the US? Not to mention that executives don't "have" companies, shareholders do.

Yes, if the executives at Apple decide that they want to pay corporate taxes in Ireland instead of the US to reduce their taxes and increase their income, they should move Apple to Ireland from the valley.

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"