Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

    A global super-rich elite has exploited gaps in cross-border tax rules to hide an extraordinary £13 trillion ($21tn) of wealth offshore – as much as the American and Japanese GDPs put together.

    James Henry, former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens, has compiled the most detailed estimates yet of the size of the offshore economy in a new report, The Price of Offshore Revisited, released exclusively to the Observer.

    He shows that at least £13tn – perhaps up to £20tn – has leaked out of scores of countries into secretive jurisdictions such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands with the help of private banks, which vie to attract the assets of so-called high net-worth individuals. Their wealth is, as Henry puts it, "protected by a highly paid, industrious bevy of professional enablers in the private banking, legal, accounting and investment industries taking advantage of the increasingly borderless, frictionless global economy". According to Henry's research, the top 10 private banks, which include UBS and Credit Suisse in Switzerland, as well as the US investment bank Goldman Sachs, managed more than £4tn in 2010, a sharp rise from £1.5tn five years earlier.

    The detailed analysis in the report, compiled using data from a range of sources, including the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund, suggests that for many developing countries the cumulative value of the capital that has flowed out of their economies since the 1970s would be more than enough to pay off their debts to the rest of the world.

    Oil-rich states with an internationally mobile elite have been especially prone to watching their wealth disappear into offshore bank accounts instead of being invested at home, the research suggests. Once the returns on investing the hidden assets is included, almost £500bn has left Russia since the early 1990s when its economy was opened up. Saudi Arabia has seen £197bn flood out since the mid-1970s, and Nigeria £196bn.

    "The problem here is that the assets of these countries are held by a small number of wealthy individuals while the debts are shouldered by the ordinary people of these countries through their governments," the report says.

    The sheer size of the cash pile sitting out of reach of tax authorities is so great that it suggests standard measures of inequality radically underestimate the true gap between rich and poor. According to Henry's calculations, £6.3tn of assets is owned by only 92,000 people, or 0.001% of the world's population – a tiny class of the mega-rich who have more in common with each other than those at the bottom of the income scale in their own societies.

    "These estimates reveal a staggering failure: inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people," said John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network. "People on the street have no illusions about how unfair the situation has become."

    TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "Countries around the world are under intense pressure to reduce their deficits and governments cannot afford to let so much wealth slip past into tax havens.

    "Closing down the tax loopholes exploited by multinationals and the super-rich to avoid paying their fair share will reduce the deficit. This way the government can focus on stimulating the economy, rather than squeezing the life out of it with cuts and tax rises for the 99% of people who aren't rich enough to avoid paying their taxes."

    Assuming the £13tn mountain of assets earned an average 3% a year for its owners, and governments were able to tax that income at 30%, it would generate a bumper £121bn in revenues – more than rich countries spend on aid to the developing world each year.

    Groups such as UK Uncut have focused attention on the paltry tax bills of some highly wealthy individuals, such as Topshop owner Sir Philip Green, with campaigners at one recent protest shouting: "Where did all the money go? He took it off to Monaco!" Much of Green's retail empire is owned by his wife, Tina, who lives in the low-tax principality.

    A spokeswoman for UK Uncut said: "People like Philip Green use public services – they need the streets to be cleaned, people need public transport to get to their shops – but they don't want to pay for it."

    Leaders of G20 countries have repeatedly pledged to close down tax havens since the financial crisis of 2008, when the secrecy shrouding parts of the banking system was widely seen as exacerbating instability. But many countries still refuse to make details of individuals' financial worth available to the tax authorities in their home countries as a matter of course. Tax Justice Network would like to see this kind of exchange of information become standard practice, to prevent rich individuals playing off one jurisdiction against another.

    "The very existence of the global offshore industry, and the tax-free status of the enormous sums invested by their wealthy clients, is predicated on secrecy," said Henry.

  • #2
    Re: R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

    The problem begins and ends with government. Money will move where it is treated best. If government around the world all taxed at the same rate, and lived within their means, none of this would be a problem.



    Now we have the 'fair share' bullschmidt being bandied about like the rich don't pay taxes. First off if they are not paying taxes, it is because they have bought off government in an attempt to legally evade paying a lot. And if they cannot,then they wish to move their money to where erratic or corrupt governments cannot 'grab' it easily. makes perfect sense to me.

    Should the rich pay more taxes? sometimes. Certainly a society with 100m people making $100k per year will exhibit more inherent stability in terms of purchasing, taxation, savings et al than one of 98m people making $50k and 2m people making a few billion. Those billionaires cannot make up the difference in broad scale spending when things turn down. And we would have to add that extreme wealth consolidation certainly adds to the consolidation of assets to those ultra-wealthy as well, since their money makes far more money than the avge person with a small savings account.

    However, witht he grand malfeasance of government, especially in the spending realm over the past 4 decades, you could take all the money from all the wealthy and have no impact on our spending or debt. All of the wealth of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would run government for something like a month.

    We do not have a tax problem, we have a spending problem, we have a corruption problem, we have a tax-code problem, and we have a lack of leadership problem. Trying to pain the rich as evil and going to extract more 'fair share' will not solve any of the real problems we face.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

      Originally posted by doom&gloom View Post
      The problem begins and ends with government. Money will move where it is treated best. ....
      ...
      witht he grand malfeasance of government, especially in the spending realm over the past 4 decades, you could take all the money from all the wealthy and have no impact on our spending or debt. All of the wealth of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would run government for something like a month.

      We do not have a tax problem, we have a spending problem, we have a corruption problem, we have a tax-code problem, and we have a lack of leadership problem. Trying to pain the rich as evil and going to extract more 'fair share' will not solve any of the real problems we face.
      +1
      and simply jacking up the rates will impact the working class far more than 'the rich'
      altho i do think the FICA limits should be upped substantially.
      and the taxcuts of 2001-3 have outlived their usefulness

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

        So does this mean that all the money stolen and/or exported from the former Soviet Union in the post 1991 wild west collapse that led to the rise of the Russian Oligarchs and helped support The City in London and a bunch of high profile Russians owning soccer teams in the UK have to be repatriated to Russia as well?

        Or is that somehow different?

        My over simplistic perspective is that this whole tax haven and tax black hole campaign sounds like(half joking):

        Operation Hotel California

        or maybe:

        Operation Roach Motel


        Your money can check in or check out any time it wants, but it can never leave.

        I wonder if we will see more competitive cash/profit/tax amnesties?

        A couple big efforts to repatriate money back home to shore up bank/national balance sheets before the hammer falls?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

          don't count on it. government does not like to acknowledge defeat, and the current POTUS would look on that as a defeat.

          Frankly, although I no longer own a business in the US, I just wish the hell the CONgress would set a set of rules and takes and just live with it. hell we should pay they twice as much to go home and never come back and tinker with the tax code again. the nation would be better off as a whole.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

            Originally posted by d&g
            The problem begins and ends with government. Money will move where it is treated best. If government around the world all taxed at the same rate, and lived within their means, none of this would be a problem.
            Of course this is true, but tax havens are not quite the same thing.

            I mean, if you want to go live in the Caribbean full time, or whatever tax haven you've chosen, that's one thing.

            The people who own this wealth, however, aren't hiding. They're living in penthouses in Manhattan, Paris, London, Moscow, and so forth. They're dining in the fancy restaurants, shopping in the fancy stores, going to sporting events (and houses), and so on and so forth.

            If government really wanted to, it isn't hard at all to claw back. I actually think this situation is another unintended consequence of government by law: for the super-rich, it makes no sense to have identical laws as for everyone else. They have so much resources to circumvent and so much incentive that it is hardly surprising that they're doing what they've done.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
              ...The people who own this wealth, however, aren't hiding. They're living in penthouses in Manhattan, Paris, London, Moscow, and so forth. They're dining in the fancy restaurants, shopping in the fancy stores, going to sporting events (and houses), and so on and so forth.
              ...

              More to the point, they are driving on the roads; enjoying the protection of police and firefighters; benefiting from the courts and laws that protect their property rights and contracts; and dining worry-free knowing that their food and restaurants have been inspected and are safe. All at the expense of other taxpayers like you and me who cannot afford to dodge our taxes.



              "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes..."
              - Leona Helmsley

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

                Originally posted by thriftyandboringinohio View Post

                "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes..."
                - Leona Helmsley
                "In a judgment (published on June 16, 2008), Manhattan Surrogate Court Judge Reena Roth ruled Helmsley was mentally unfit when she executed her will. Hence, the Court, amid settlement, reduced the $12 million trust fund for the pet Trouble to $2 million."

                Not only that, but look at how callously they spend their wealth. Estate taxes need to be massively increased.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

                  Why wait until they die? We need a wealth tax that starts at a high enough level that small and medium businesses are exempt, but that prevents the formation of mega corps, mega banks, and mega rich people. It should even be applied to tax exempt entities. The rate should be proportionate to the size of the entity up to a certain point. This would make smaller, better in the tax realm. On the other hand, we should abolish income taxes for everyone and every entity, and implement a national sales tax. Let people decide how much tax they want to pay by how much they buy. And no more complicated corporate structures to hide income or place it in a different jurisdiction. Or course it will never happen. People and corporations at that level will do anything to keep their wealth. Concentrations of wealth/power are in and of themselves dangerous to any free society. They should be destroyed as a matter of public policy. What is a high enough level for individuals? Maybe 10, 20, 30 million, then start phasing in a 5% a year wealth tax and make it progressive as the net worth increases. Penalties for attempted evasion should be high, perhaps four times the amount in question.
                  "I love a dog, he does nothing for political reasons." --Will Rogers

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: R Off-Shore Tax Havens that Big a Deal?

                    I agree entirely with you, photon.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X