That's what Accountancy Age says might break out if Obama wins. And they note:
Tax campaigner Richard Murphy says there are some clear practical steps that could be taken to deal with havens, which are, after all, sovereign states and free to set up whatever tax rates they like.
'Tax is not the issue,' Murphy says, insisting that it is more a question of secrecy. He refers to havens rather as 'secrecy jurisdictions'.
He says these jurisdictions have to provide better information sharing arrangements; the current ones being ineffective.
And if they don't, larger countries could withhold tax at source.
Equally, companies who decide to situate intellectual property abroad putting a brand name in a company in the British Virgin Islands, for example, and getting UK-based companies to pay a fee to that company for the use of it could end up finding that fee is not tax deductible against their UK profits.
A better list of jurisdictions needs to be drawn up, and it is possible a UN tax committee, rather than the OECD, could take on responsibility for the issues.
Not only that, but the big countries may have to change some of their own rules to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard,
This quote is highly disingenuous. It is true that transparency (or a lack therof) is an important issue. However, to say “tax is not the issue” is nothing but a very large red herring. Those on a hobby horse to “destroy” tax havens are the very same calling for re-distributionist and a cradle-to-grave nanny state which would only come about via higher levels of taxation of the individual.
Let us be clear, the anti tax haven enthusiasts have a simple bar to pass. If the tax havens offered up exactly the same services at exactly the same levels of low taxation, but provided normal transparency, would the high tax cravers be satisfied? An honest answer is no. Then again, honesty is not what the hard left tax, grab, gobble, and spend are aiming for.
Another easy test, is it better for the individual to bear the burden of low rates of taxation or high? The attending lower level of governmental spending/programmes (all designed to “help” mind you) that comes with low rates of taxation are just fine in these quarters.
Georges
Not disingenuous at all – true.
You are creating a straw man – that I love high tax, that I would increase it, that I believe in a nanny state. None is true.
I want all people to pay their tax. I hate those who cheat on their obligations – of all sorts – but as an accountant, of those who cheat tax in particular
I have never disputed that one possible outcome for the enhnaced tax yield this would appear to provide is a lower tax rate for honest citizens – and that is a democratically valid choice
As for your ”
tax havens offering up exactly the same services at exactly the same levels of low taxation, but provided normal transparency” – come on that’s just another straw man. It is not possible. Withou secrecy the low rates these places offer are of no use to most people
So your arguments are hollow – and you know it
As for the last question – trust the ballot box. Why are you so anti-democratic unlike us who oppose tax havens?
Richard