D
Departed
Guest
This thread is meant to be a discussion of cause and effect. Not a political rant.
D
Departed
Guest
How high-tax Canada is driving away billionaire entrepreneurs like Murray Edwards
Kevin Libin | March 28, 2016 6:31 PM ET
Gavin Young/Calgary Herald, fileKevin Libin: Canada may be just now be witnessing a new migratory phenomenon, too: The tax-climate refugee. Billionaire Murray Edwards has, after creating an empire from Calgary, evidently relocated his residence to London, England.
The recent wave of populist politics aimed at making the moneyed class pay more in higher taxes has now evidently left us with one fewer member of the moneyed class
All over the globe, the great migration of people running for better lives is upsetting the world order. More than a million migrants to Europe have set in motion a long-term shift in the continent’s demographics, while shaking the entire EU project. Millions pouring over the southern U.S. border have irreversibly tilted America’s culture towards Hispanic Catholicism and lately prompted a leading presidential contender to promise barricades against more. This may be just the beginning. Once global warming really kicks in, say the experts, the world will be awash with a new class of migrant: The climate change refugee.
Canada may be just now be witnessing a new migratory phenomenon, too: The tax-climate refugee. Billionaire Murray Edwards has, after creating an empire from Calgary, evidently relocated his residence to London, England. Separate sources in the know have told Postmedia the move had much to do with the better environment for taxes there. You might think it sounds outlandish, all that effort just to save some taxes. But would you be willing move to one of the world’s great cultural and commercial capitals if someone offered you several million dollars a year for the trouble? The question obviously answers itself.
The left insists this sort of thing only happens in theory — that highly skilled, high-net-worth individuals aren’t really an astonishingly mobile tax base that can and would uproot to London or Monaco or the Caribbean to preserve their wealth, and we can tax them all we want. This despite the fact that studies consistently indicate this mobility does happen, and reality indicates that there are already plenty of high-net-worth Canadians living in London, Monaco and the Caribbean.
Related
Billionaire investor Murray Edwards leaves oilpatch, decamps from Calgary to London
Watch out, the Liberals’ federal budget is shutting down two favourable tax rules for investors
These are choices the ultra-wealthy face that make them different from the rest of us. On paper, the recent cranking up of top marginal tax rates looks mild enough. A federal increase of just a few percentage points, from 29 to 33 per cent on each dollar earned above $200,000 this year. In NDP Alberta, it was a five per cent hop from the flat 10 per cent tax to 15 per cent on income over $300,000 (still not even the highest among provinces). Not many of us have incomes that big, and even most who do earn the bulk of it at lower marginal rates.
Advertisement
But then there are super-earners like Edwards. They literally earn that first $200,000 or $300,000 in just the first few days of the year. The other 51 weeks of their income is taxed at top rates. The combined nine per cent tax hike that the Trudeau Liberals and Rachel Notley’s NDP together slapped on Albertans, all in one year, easily adds up to millions of dollars more in taxes for a heavy-hitter like Edwards.
The $13 million a year he makes in cash and stock as chairman of his company, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., is a mere portion of his paycheque. Reports have him earning millions more as chairman of Ensign Energy Services Inc. and Magellan Aerospace Inc. As a significant shareholder in CNRL, there’s the quarterly dividend cheques. He’s a partner in the Calgary Flames, a hockey team that brings in more than US$25 million in net profits for its five owners, according to Forbes. And then there’s Edwards’s own Resorts of the Canadian Rockies, the largest private ski resort operator in North America, which kicks in who knows how much more.
The recent upward whipsaw in income taxes in this country, and particularly Alberta, are great for the soak-the-rich politics peddled by the prime minister and the Alberta premier, but the ultra-rich do not often get that way by allowing themselves to be easily soaked. Were he to stay in Alberta, Edwards would face not only a more than 20 per cent increase in his income tax bill, he’d be looking at paying between up to 50 per cent more in taxes on his dividends (the rate went from 19.29 in 2014 to 31.71 this year), and a 23 per cent increase in the tax bill on his capital gains (up from 19.5 to 24 per cent).
So Murray Edwards is now a Laffer Curve come to life. The recent wave of populist politics aimed at making the moneyed class pay more in higher taxes has now evidently left us with one fewer member of the moneyed class. Given the generous “non-domiciled” tax breaks in Britain that allow wealthy foreigners to live there but pay almost no income taxes — successfully luring to the U.K. waves of migratory billionaires, celebrities and Russian oligarchs — Edwards stands to save a fortune. That’s millions in taxes lost to Alberta and Ottawa, not to mention the money he’ll personally spend and donate abroad rather than here. And he may not be the last tax refugee: Canada’s average combined top marginal tax rate, at 53 per cent, is now one of the highest in the Western world; only Sweden, Denmark and France’s are steeper. There are dozens of billionaires in this country. There are hundreds more with wealth in the high nine-figure range.
For these people, a five-million pound flat in London has its allures not just for the tax shelter. The high-end property market is looking far less overheated lately. And of course the restaurants, shopping and theatre are incomparably better, too. London can only look to Canada’s wealthy like an increasingly comfortable haven to take cover until governments here remember again that even one brilliant, job-creating, philanthropic entrepreneur refugee leaving Canada is one too many.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/the-tax-climate-refugee-murray-edwards
Kevin Libin | March 28, 2016 6:31 PM ET
Gavin Young/Calgary Herald, fileKevin Libin: Canada may be just now be witnessing a new migratory phenomenon, too: The tax-climate refugee. Billionaire Murray Edwards has, after creating an empire from Calgary, evidently relocated his residence to London, England.
The recent wave of populist politics aimed at making the moneyed class pay more in higher taxes has now evidently left us with one fewer member of the moneyed class
All over the globe, the great migration of people running for better lives is upsetting the world order. More than a million migrants to Europe have set in motion a long-term shift in the continent’s demographics, while shaking the entire EU project. Millions pouring over the southern U.S. border have irreversibly tilted America’s culture towards Hispanic Catholicism and lately prompted a leading presidential contender to promise barricades against more. This may be just the beginning. Once global warming really kicks in, say the experts, the world will be awash with a new class of migrant: The climate change refugee.
Canada may be just now be witnessing a new migratory phenomenon, too: The tax-climate refugee. Billionaire Murray Edwards has, after creating an empire from Calgary, evidently relocated his residence to London, England. Separate sources in the know have told Postmedia the move had much to do with the better environment for taxes there. You might think it sounds outlandish, all that effort just to save some taxes. But would you be willing move to one of the world’s great cultural and commercial capitals if someone offered you several million dollars a year for the trouble? The question obviously answers itself.
The left insists this sort of thing only happens in theory — that highly skilled, high-net-worth individuals aren’t really an astonishingly mobile tax base that can and would uproot to London or Monaco or the Caribbean to preserve their wealth, and we can tax them all we want. This despite the fact that studies consistently indicate this mobility does happen, and reality indicates that there are already plenty of high-net-worth Canadians living in London, Monaco and the Caribbean.
Related
Billionaire investor Murray Edwards leaves oilpatch, decamps from Calgary to London
Watch out, the Liberals’ federal budget is shutting down two favourable tax rules for investors
These are choices the ultra-wealthy face that make them different from the rest of us. On paper, the recent cranking up of top marginal tax rates looks mild enough. A federal increase of just a few percentage points, from 29 to 33 per cent on each dollar earned above $200,000 this year. In NDP Alberta, it was a five per cent hop from the flat 10 per cent tax to 15 per cent on income over $300,000 (still not even the highest among provinces). Not many of us have incomes that big, and even most who do earn the bulk of it at lower marginal rates.
Advertisement
But then there are super-earners like Edwards. They literally earn that first $200,000 or $300,000 in just the first few days of the year. The other 51 weeks of their income is taxed at top rates. The combined nine per cent tax hike that the Trudeau Liberals and Rachel Notley’s NDP together slapped on Albertans, all in one year, easily adds up to millions of dollars more in taxes for a heavy-hitter like Edwards.
The $13 million a year he makes in cash and stock as chairman of his company, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., is a mere portion of his paycheque. Reports have him earning millions more as chairman of Ensign Energy Services Inc. and Magellan Aerospace Inc. As a significant shareholder in CNRL, there’s the quarterly dividend cheques. He’s a partner in the Calgary Flames, a hockey team that brings in more than US$25 million in net profits for its five owners, according to Forbes. And then there’s Edwards’s own Resorts of the Canadian Rockies, the largest private ski resort operator in North America, which kicks in who knows how much more.
The recent upward whipsaw in income taxes in this country, and particularly Alberta, are great for the soak-the-rich politics peddled by the prime minister and the Alberta premier, but the ultra-rich do not often get that way by allowing themselves to be easily soaked. Were he to stay in Alberta, Edwards would face not only a more than 20 per cent increase in his income tax bill, he’d be looking at paying between up to 50 per cent more in taxes on his dividends (the rate went from 19.29 in 2014 to 31.71 this year), and a 23 per cent increase in the tax bill on his capital gains (up from 19.5 to 24 per cent).
So Murray Edwards is now a Laffer Curve come to life. The recent wave of populist politics aimed at making the moneyed class pay more in higher taxes has now evidently left us with one fewer member of the moneyed class. Given the generous “non-domiciled” tax breaks in Britain that allow wealthy foreigners to live there but pay almost no income taxes — successfully luring to the U.K. waves of migratory billionaires, celebrities and Russian oligarchs — Edwards stands to save a fortune. That’s millions in taxes lost to Alberta and Ottawa, not to mention the money he’ll personally spend and donate abroad rather than here. And he may not be the last tax refugee: Canada’s average combined top marginal tax rate, at 53 per cent, is now one of the highest in the Western world; only Sweden, Denmark and France’s are steeper. There are dozens of billionaires in this country. There are hundreds more with wealth in the high nine-figure range.
For these people, a five-million pound flat in London has its allures not just for the tax shelter. The high-end property market is looking far less overheated lately. And of course the restaurants, shopping and theatre are incomparably better, too. London can only look to Canada’s wealthy like an increasingly comfortable haven to take cover until governments here remember again that even one brilliant, job-creating, philanthropic entrepreneur refugee leaving Canada is one too many.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/the-tax-climate-refugee-murray-edwards
D
Departed
Guest
Climate Migration ‘a Complex Problem’
HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS : Climate Change, Oceans, Vulnerabilities
2013•10•31 Eva Mahnke Deutsche Welle Global Ideas
Email
Tweet
Share
UN Photo/Arpan Munier
UN Photo/Arpan Munier
Climate change is forcing people to flee their homes. But when does someone become a climate migrant, and what does the status mean? Dina Ionesco from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), explains.
Ionesco has been working at the IOM since 2011 in the field of climate change and the environment. She coordinates IOM’s participation at international climate negotiations, establishes partnerships with other institutions or training programs and writes for IOM’s publications.
The Geneva-based IOM fights for the rights of migrants around the world. The organization’s predecessor was founded in 1951 to address migration issues following World War II. Today, the IOM includes 151 member states.
Global Ideas: Ms. Ionesco, a man named Ioane Teitiota from the island of Kiribati has sparked a global debate because he’s the first person ever to seek asylum for his family as climate refugees. He says his family has no future in their country because of rising water levels. Now, New Zealand has to decide whether to grant him asylum in a landmark case. You work for the International Organization for Migration (IOM), one of the most important global aid groups for migrants. Would the IOM recognize Ioane Teitiota as a climate refugee?
Dina Ionesco: New Zealand will have to decide based on the case. It’s the prerogative of the state to decide what is considered a reason to grant asylum. Our organization is only there to offer a platform for countries to discuss issues and also to work together to innovative solutions and bring things to the agenda.
We, at the IOM don’t use the ‘climate refugee’ terminology because it’s not directly in the Geneva Convention which officially lays down when somebody is recognized as a refugee. It would be an interpretation and we can’t do that. What matters for us is that in a case like this, the rights of a person are recognized, that the best solution is found for the rights of the migrant. Refugee is a term from the Geneva Convention that has to show persecution for gender, for religion, for conflict, war – it’s very specific.
Still, the IOM does make clear that climate change can be a driver of migration. Your member states agreed back in 2007 to use the term ‘environmental migrant’ right?
Yes, this definition is the result of 20 years of hard work. It’s now used often in the international debate but it’s also criticized a lot. The definition emerged in the run-up to the climate conference in Copenhagen at a time when awareness was growing in the IOM about the impact of the environment and climate on migration patterns. At the same time, the worsening of environmental conditions due to climate change was becoming more apparent.
Who does the IOM consider to be an environmental migrant?
The most common reason why people leave their homes because of environmental factors is floods and droughts as well as changes in precipitation patterns. Our definition includes all kinds of migration caused by changes in climatic conditions – both due to acute natural disasters or because of a slow worsening of environmental conditions, for example, soil and ground degradation. The important thing about our approach is that we see ‘climate refugees’ as those who flee from pressing, immediate dangers as well as those who decide to leave their homes voluntarily.
The IOM maintains that its definition doesn’t carry any normative consequences, but rather describes what an environmental migrant is. If it doesn’t have any consequences, why do you need a term for it?
We need it in order to sensitize people that environmental changes play a huge role in triggering human migration. And we need it as an advocacy tool so that environment matters and migration are given more importance on a political policy level.
Is the IOM fighting to make sure that environmental migrants are legally recognized, for example as part of the Geneva Convention?
We have to be realistic about what countries want. At the moment they’re not interested in changing the Geneva Convention, so we are not trying to push that. It’s important to keep in mind that simply recognizing the climate refugee status would still exclude a lot of environmental migrants, because a large part of migration takes place as internal migration, within a country. Of course, the legal status of migrants who cross borders plays a big role but it’s just one way to support migrants.
What other possibilities are there?
The IOM tries to works towards strengthening all possible instruments. That could, for instance, be bilateral agreements on a temporary taking on of people after a natural catastrophe in a neighboring country, allowing people in as economic migrants or setting up help and aid offices. Actually, the structures to support climate refugees are already in place. They just need to be used and expanded. For instance, we have the so-called Kampala Convention, an agreement among African nations that regulates domestic migration. But countries that are now working on adaptation strategies for climate change should also pay more attention to the issue of mobility on a national level. And of course, you can and must look at the issue from the perspective of human rights and protect the rights of migrants in every situation.
Ioane Teitiota from Kiribati is the most prominent climate refugee, or environmental migrant, right now. Will we see more and more people in that role?
The global polling institute Gallup released a survey in 2011 that one in every ten adults around the world assumes that environmental conditions will be at least one driver for migration in the coming decades.
But you have to keep in mind that the reasons for migration are often very complex. In addition to environmental factors, other factors such as the political situation, conflicts or economic conditions in a country also play a role. Let’s take, for example, the Horn of Africa. Here, drought, hunger and political conflicts have led to a complex form of migration. The environment is just one of many factors.
What does migration have to do with security? In 2011, the UN Security Council first looked into the link between climate change and security.
There is a connection between migration and security. The issue of environmental migration touches on all social aspects. Among other things, migration heightens existing conflicts, for instance when people who are fleeing from drought migrate to a region that’s also suffering from a lack of water. That puts a strain on communities.
With such a complex issue, how can you actually measure how many environmental migrants there are worldwide?
We need to be extremely careful with numbers. The important thing is what these numbers exactly represent. One possibility is to count people who live in regions potentially threatened by climate change. For instance, the so-called Foresight Report in the UK says that 520 million people each year are affected by flooding in coastal zones and 120 million people are exposed to tropical cyclones. These numbers sound dramatic but don’t say anything about how many people are actually affected and how many will as a result migrate.
In addition, it’s difficult to get reliable statistics because a large share of migration takes place within countries. What we have are relatively precise figures on how many people around the world had to leave their homes because of natural disasters – in 2012, that was around 32 million people.
But overall, it makes no sense to be obsessed with big numbers. The phenomenon of climate migration is very complex and big numbers threaten to blur the differences between different migration patterns. One should be careful in viewing migration only negatively. It also holds huge potential for adaptation to climate change.
Copyright Deutsche Welle Global Ideas. All rights reserved.
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/climate-migration-a-complex-problem
HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS : Climate Change, Oceans, Vulnerabilities
2013•10•31 Eva Mahnke Deutsche Welle Global Ideas
Tweet
Share
UN Photo/Arpan Munier
UN Photo/Arpan Munier
Climate change is forcing people to flee their homes. But when does someone become a climate migrant, and what does the status mean? Dina Ionesco from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), explains.
Ionesco has been working at the IOM since 2011 in the field of climate change and the environment. She coordinates IOM’s participation at international climate negotiations, establishes partnerships with other institutions or training programs and writes for IOM’s publications.
The Geneva-based IOM fights for the rights of migrants around the world. The organization’s predecessor was founded in 1951 to address migration issues following World War II. Today, the IOM includes 151 member states.
Global Ideas: Ms. Ionesco, a man named Ioane Teitiota from the island of Kiribati has sparked a global debate because he’s the first person ever to seek asylum for his family as climate refugees. He says his family has no future in their country because of rising water levels. Now, New Zealand has to decide whether to grant him asylum in a landmark case. You work for the International Organization for Migration (IOM), one of the most important global aid groups for migrants. Would the IOM recognize Ioane Teitiota as a climate refugee?
Dina Ionesco: New Zealand will have to decide based on the case. It’s the prerogative of the state to decide what is considered a reason to grant asylum. Our organization is only there to offer a platform for countries to discuss issues and also to work together to innovative solutions and bring things to the agenda.
We, at the IOM don’t use the ‘climate refugee’ terminology because it’s not directly in the Geneva Convention which officially lays down when somebody is recognized as a refugee. It would be an interpretation and we can’t do that. What matters for us is that in a case like this, the rights of a person are recognized, that the best solution is found for the rights of the migrant. Refugee is a term from the Geneva Convention that has to show persecution for gender, for religion, for conflict, war – it’s very specific.
Still, the IOM does make clear that climate change can be a driver of migration. Your member states agreed back in 2007 to use the term ‘environmental migrant’ right?
Yes, this definition is the result of 20 years of hard work. It’s now used often in the international debate but it’s also criticized a lot. The definition emerged in the run-up to the climate conference in Copenhagen at a time when awareness was growing in the IOM about the impact of the environment and climate on migration patterns. At the same time, the worsening of environmental conditions due to climate change was becoming more apparent.
Who does the IOM consider to be an environmental migrant?
The most common reason why people leave their homes because of environmental factors is floods and droughts as well as changes in precipitation patterns. Our definition includes all kinds of migration caused by changes in climatic conditions – both due to acute natural disasters or because of a slow worsening of environmental conditions, for example, soil and ground degradation. The important thing about our approach is that we see ‘climate refugees’ as those who flee from pressing, immediate dangers as well as those who decide to leave their homes voluntarily.
The IOM maintains that its definition doesn’t carry any normative consequences, but rather describes what an environmental migrant is. If it doesn’t have any consequences, why do you need a term for it?
We need it in order to sensitize people that environmental changes play a huge role in triggering human migration. And we need it as an advocacy tool so that environment matters and migration are given more importance on a political policy level.
Is the IOM fighting to make sure that environmental migrants are legally recognized, for example as part of the Geneva Convention?
We have to be realistic about what countries want. At the moment they’re not interested in changing the Geneva Convention, so we are not trying to push that. It’s important to keep in mind that simply recognizing the climate refugee status would still exclude a lot of environmental migrants, because a large part of migration takes place as internal migration, within a country. Of course, the legal status of migrants who cross borders plays a big role but it’s just one way to support migrants.
What other possibilities are there?
The IOM tries to works towards strengthening all possible instruments. That could, for instance, be bilateral agreements on a temporary taking on of people after a natural catastrophe in a neighboring country, allowing people in as economic migrants or setting up help and aid offices. Actually, the structures to support climate refugees are already in place. They just need to be used and expanded. For instance, we have the so-called Kampala Convention, an agreement among African nations that regulates domestic migration. But countries that are now working on adaptation strategies for climate change should also pay more attention to the issue of mobility on a national level. And of course, you can and must look at the issue from the perspective of human rights and protect the rights of migrants in every situation.
Ioane Teitiota from Kiribati is the most prominent climate refugee, or environmental migrant, right now. Will we see more and more people in that role?
The global polling institute Gallup released a survey in 2011 that one in every ten adults around the world assumes that environmental conditions will be at least one driver for migration in the coming decades.
But you have to keep in mind that the reasons for migration are often very complex. In addition to environmental factors, other factors such as the political situation, conflicts or economic conditions in a country also play a role. Let’s take, for example, the Horn of Africa. Here, drought, hunger and political conflicts have led to a complex form of migration. The environment is just one of many factors.
What does migration have to do with security? In 2011, the UN Security Council first looked into the link between climate change and security.
There is a connection between migration and security. The issue of environmental migration touches on all social aspects. Among other things, migration heightens existing conflicts, for instance when people who are fleeing from drought migrate to a region that’s also suffering from a lack of water. That puts a strain on communities.
With such a complex issue, how can you actually measure how many environmental migrants there are worldwide?
We need to be extremely careful with numbers. The important thing is what these numbers exactly represent. One possibility is to count people who live in regions potentially threatened by climate change. For instance, the so-called Foresight Report in the UK says that 520 million people each year are affected by flooding in coastal zones and 120 million people are exposed to tropical cyclones. These numbers sound dramatic but don’t say anything about how many people are actually affected and how many will as a result migrate.
In addition, it’s difficult to get reliable statistics because a large share of migration takes place within countries. What we have are relatively precise figures on how many people around the world had to leave their homes because of natural disasters – in 2012, that was around 32 million people.
But overall, it makes no sense to be obsessed with big numbers. The phenomenon of climate migration is very complex and big numbers threaten to blur the differences between different migration patterns. One should be careful in viewing migration only negatively. It also holds huge potential for adaptation to climate change.
Copyright Deutsche Welle Global Ideas. All rights reserved.
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/climate-migration-a-complex-problem
Spurfect11
Vital Champions League
How much is Murray Edwards left after paying his Canadian tax dollars?
Spursex
Alert Team
That's a question driven by envy, it really doesn't matter as it's his money and he will believe he's earned the right to earn it.
What's far more important is that once again the lesson hasn't been learned - in every case that a left leaning government has hiked taxes beyond the 'norm' (see developed World, first class biggest economies) and many of their wealthiest simply up sticks and move jurisdiction to a 'fairer' economic area - thus depriving that government of greater tax income.
It's really worth understanding that the top 5% earners in most sophisticated economies pay around 40-50% of the tax revenues of the government (it's even higher when you take in indirect taxes).
Western economies have to learn to quickly live within their means -as do it's consumers. We're repeating all the same mistakes as led to the banking and personal debt crisis - most especially in the UK.
I fear we will never learn and the next debt shock (it's in the pipeline and will hit us next couple of years imho) will be devastating to those that are paying for their lifestyle by borrowings and have no savings to call on when periods get tough.
D
Departed
Guest
What most don't get is that the people that leave aren't about keeping the money they save on taxes for themselves. They are about having more resources to reinvest back into the ventures they started or new ventures they want to get into. Which, surprise surprise, create value and new jobs.
But why the naff would we ever discuss the economic benefits of having people like Murray Edwards based locally.
But why the naff would we ever discuss the economic benefits of having people like Murray Edwards based locally.
Spurfect11
Vital Champions League
so who is going to pay for our failing economy? the working class? the 99.9% who earn over 70 times less than the top 0.1%?
which is it?
which is it?
Spurfect11
Vital Champions League
a lot of these "jobs" created by large multinationals also pay minimum wage, which despite what Geroge Osbourne tells you about the new Living Wage.....it is not a Living Wage. The Living Wage has been calculated by independent bodies to be around £9.60 now in 2016. Instead the Chancellor says it will reach this by 2020, where inevitably, the true living wage will be much more than £9.60.
and yet there are a large number of companies that pay the living wage as it is, knowing full well employees will be turning to in-work benefits to pay their way.
large companies are letting tax payers subsidies their wage bill. then they also try to dodge as much tax as possible.
it if fair enough to point to a good, moral company that truly helps the economy. but the fact is that there are too many companies which take liberties with the tax payers.
and yet there are a large number of companies that pay the living wage as it is, knowing full well employees will be turning to in-work benefits to pay their way.
large companies are letting tax payers subsidies their wage bill. then they also try to dodge as much tax as possible.
it if fair enough to point to a good, moral company that truly helps the economy. but the fact is that there are too many companies which take liberties with the tax payers.
D
Departed
Guest
Perhaps a look at why an economy is failing should be the first step in the process. Band aid solutions on a major injury are not the answer.
Spurfect11
Vital Champions League
very timely - The Panama Papers
The Panama papers show just the depth and breadth of unfair multi billion dollar tax avoidance. And this includes the late father of David Cameron who set up overseas companies to ensure he paid no tax on British soil.
The Tories rabitt on and on about how we need to preserve the british way of life - and yet they refuse to pay their fair share of tax back to THE BRITISH TAX PAYER.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to hide a billion dollars - video explainer
Juliette Garside, Holly Watt and David Pegg
Sunday 3 April 2016 18.50 BST
Last modified on Monday 4 April 2016 13.02 BST
Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+
Shares
49,221
Save for later
The hidden wealth of some of the world’s most prominent leaders, politicians and celebrities has been revealed by an unprecedented leak of millions of documents that show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes.
The Guardian, working with global partners, will set out details from the first tranche of what are being called “the Panama Papers”. Journalists from more than 80 countries have been reviewing 11.5m files leaked from the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm.
The records were obtained from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with the Guardian and the BBC.
Though there is nothing unlawful about using offshore companies, the files raise fundamental questions about the ethics of such tax havens – and the revelations are likely to provoke urgent calls for reforms of a system that critics say is arcane and open to abuse.
The Panama Papers reveal:
Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens.
A $2bn trail leads all the way to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin - is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married.
Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.
In the UK, six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to British political parties have had offshore assets.
The families of at least eight current and former members of China’s supreme ruling body, the politburo, have been found to have hidden wealth offshore.
Twenty-three individuals who have had sanctions imposed on them for supporting the regimes in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia, Iran and Syria have been clients of Mossack Fonseca. Their companies were harboured by the Seychelles, the British Virgin Islands, Panama and other jurisdictions.
A key member of Fifa’s powerful ethics committee, which is supposed to be spearheading reform at world football’s scandal-hit governing body, acted as a lawyer for individuals and companies recently charged with bribery and corruption.
One leaked memorandum from a partner of Mossack Fonseca said: “Ninety-five per cent of our work coincidentally consists in selling vehicles to avoid taxes.”
The company has flatly denied any wrongdoing. It says it has acted beyond reproach for 40 years and that it has had robust due diligence procedures.
The document leak comes from the records of the firm, which was founded in 1977. The information is near live, with the most recent records dating from December 2015.
Three hundred and 70 reporters from 100 media organisations have spent a year analysing and verifying the documents.
The British prime minister, David Cameron, has promised to “sweep away” tax secrecy – but little has been done. He is planning a summit of world leaders next month, which will focus on the conduct of tax havens.
The prime minister set out his line in 2011 when he said: “We need to shine a spotlight on who owns what and where the money is really flowing.”
The Panama papers show just the depth and breadth of unfair multi billion dollar tax avoidance. And this includes the late father of David Cameron who set up overseas companies to ensure he paid no tax on British soil.
The Tories rabitt on and on about how we need to preserve the british way of life - and yet they refuse to pay their fair share of tax back to THE BRITISH TAX PAYER.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to hide a billion dollars - video explainer
Juliette Garside, Holly Watt and David Pegg
Sunday 3 April 2016 18.50 BST
Last modified on Monday 4 April 2016 13.02 BST
Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+
Shares
49,221
Save for later
The hidden wealth of some of the world’s most prominent leaders, politicians and celebrities has been revealed by an unprecedented leak of millions of documents that show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes.
The Guardian, working with global partners, will set out details from the first tranche of what are being called “the Panama Papers”. Journalists from more than 80 countries have been reviewing 11.5m files leaked from the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm.
The records were obtained from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with the Guardian and the BBC.
Though there is nothing unlawful about using offshore companies, the files raise fundamental questions about the ethics of such tax havens – and the revelations are likely to provoke urgent calls for reforms of a system that critics say is arcane and open to abuse.
The Panama Papers reveal:
Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens.
A $2bn trail leads all the way to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin - is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married.
Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.
In the UK, six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to British political parties have had offshore assets.
The families of at least eight current and former members of China’s supreme ruling body, the politburo, have been found to have hidden wealth offshore.
Twenty-three individuals who have had sanctions imposed on them for supporting the regimes in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia, Iran and Syria have been clients of Mossack Fonseca. Their companies were harboured by the Seychelles, the British Virgin Islands, Panama and other jurisdictions.
A key member of Fifa’s powerful ethics committee, which is supposed to be spearheading reform at world football’s scandal-hit governing body, acted as a lawyer for individuals and companies recently charged with bribery and corruption.
One leaked memorandum from a partner of Mossack Fonseca said: “Ninety-five per cent of our work coincidentally consists in selling vehicles to avoid taxes.”
The company has flatly denied any wrongdoing. It says it has acted beyond reproach for 40 years and that it has had robust due diligence procedures.
The document leak comes from the records of the firm, which was founded in 1977. The information is near live, with the most recent records dating from December 2015.
Three hundred and 70 reporters from 100 media organisations have spent a year analysing and verifying the documents.
The British prime minister, David Cameron, has promised to “sweep away” tax secrecy – but little has been done. He is planning a summit of world leaders next month, which will focus on the conduct of tax havens.
The prime minister set out his line in 2011 when he said: “We need to shine a spotlight on who owns what and where the money is really flowing.”
Spursex
Alert Team
Even more timely, the report yesterday that getting out of the EU will reduce immigration by around 85,000 people p.a. which will stop the mad inflation in House and rental prices which has done so much damage, as well as allow our public services to take a breath and catch up and re-structure themselves...
And they say that by 2020 being out would cost us just over £2000....
That's nothing set against our children not being able to live in a home of their own.
Let's get the f**k out now !
And they say that by 2020 being out would cost us just over £2000....
That's nothing set against our children not being able to live in a home of their own.
Let's get the f**k out now !
I dont believe that, there's plenty of reports saying all sorts of things. Most of them saying we should Stay In.
As for immigration, the canard that migrants add net benefit to the nation is utter bullshit. The Murpali Pakistanis here are costing the country billions in car crashes, court cases, death and injury to other drivers, jail sentences for drug dealing and smuggling etc
I just wish I hadn't missed the meeting where some moron decided all migrants are refugees and all of them dont need to observe any other country's borders. Utter madness
As for immigration, the canard that migrants add net benefit to the nation is utter bullshit. The Murpali Pakistanis here are costing the country billions in car crashes, court cases, death and injury to other drivers, jail sentences for drug dealing and smuggling etc
I just wish I hadn't missed the meeting where some moron decided all migrants are refugees and all of them dont need to observe any other country's borders. Utter madness
Spursex
Alert Team
Unless we get out, it will get far worse. The EU cannot police the shengen area borders properly, so when 75 million Turks get Visa free travel, it won't be difficult to see another great influx happening here that we're ill prepared for.
I despair, it's nothing to do with being xenophobic or racist, it has everything to do with understanding cause and effect and giving the nation and it's public services time to and space to fundamentally restructure itself - as well of course, trying to work out when (if ever) we can build enough decent homes to make up for the almost 1millon plus shortfall we now have.
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
Why should we be an ever expanding population ?An agreed cap should be imposed to preserve our sustainability. Roads, Hospitals, Schools and so on.
We reach the cap and it's borders closed until it comes down. Also all services need to be in place to manage the population,not let them in and knee jerk.
It's a crazy policy, the Country is already ruined but it needs to wake up and freeze it now.
We reach the cap and it's borders closed until it comes down. Also all services need to be in place to manage the population,not let them in and knee jerk.
It's a crazy policy, the Country is already ruined but it needs to wake up and freeze it now.
Spurfect11
Vital Champions League
the world is an ever increasing population!!!!!
you think Britain is unique in this? No!
It is poor countries and countries that do not take the education of women seriously that are contributing to overpopulation of the world. And yes this does mean because of the nature of Islam (or any sector of any religion) that does not allow education and liberty of women, it will be these countries that increase the population alongside poor countries like those in Africa.
Having knowing this fact about the origins of over population - what good will building a wall round the UK and thus turning a blind eye to the opportunity to liberate the poor / oppressed women do?
make the World's overpopulation problem a problem that has nothing to do with Britain? is that the answer? I don't think so.
If we as a country can do our part to take in those disadvantaged I have described above - and we certainly can if we get serious about tax havens - then perhaps we will start to see less people on this planet prioritizing having children over anything else.
Imagine if every country in a position to do this could? We would start to see a very fast decline in population increase and begin to have a planet that can sustain everyone equally.
you think Britain is unique in this? No!
It is poor countries and countries that do not take the education of women seriously that are contributing to overpopulation of the world. And yes this does mean because of the nature of Islam (or any sector of any religion) that does not allow education and liberty of women, it will be these countries that increase the population alongside poor countries like those in Africa.
Having knowing this fact about the origins of over population - what good will building a wall round the UK and thus turning a blind eye to the opportunity to liberate the poor / oppressed women do?
make the World's overpopulation problem a problem that has nothing to do with Britain? is that the answer? I don't think so.
If we as a country can do our part to take in those disadvantaged I have described above - and we certainly can if we get serious about tax havens - then perhaps we will start to see less people on this planet prioritizing having children over anything else.
Imagine if every country in a position to do this could? We would start to see a very fast decline in population increase and begin to have a planet that can sustain everyone equally.
Spurfect11
Vital Champions League
TL;DR
if there was less greed from the upper echelons - the UK and many other countries could be doing even more and scare talks (from said greedy upper echelons) about immigration would be non-existent.
ask yourself why the focus is on immigrants? it's certainly not because immigrants own the British Media hmmm!
if there was less greed from the upper echelons - the UK and many other countries could be doing even more and scare talks (from said greedy upper echelons) about immigration would be non-existent.
ask yourself why the focus is on immigrants? it's certainly not because immigrants own the British Media hmmm!
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
Just because the world has an increasing population don't make it a good thing. We have defined resources and services to accommodate a certain population. That goes for the whole world. Third world countries work on numbers due to high death rates. We influx people for financial reasons.
Think of the ideal Country. One that produces product that the world wants, one that can grow crops to support its population, one that can give security and a standard of living to all that deserve it. One that is peaceful and repels any threat to that peace. One that has spent hundreds of years establishing a way of life and protected it. One that won't let uncivilisd folk drag it's standards down to their level. One that bans religion cos it's dangerous and a waste of time. One that has identity and is proud to maintain it.
Feel free to add to the list .
Think of the ideal Country. One that produces product that the world wants, one that can grow crops to support its population, one that can give security and a standard of living to all that deserve it. One that is peaceful and repels any threat to that peace. One that has spent hundreds of years establishing a way of life and protected it. One that won't let uncivilisd folk drag it's standards down to their level. One that bans religion cos it's dangerous and a waste of time. One that has identity and is proud to maintain it.
Feel free to add to the list .
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
And now a Muslim Mayor of London, great.
Nick Real Deal
Vital Football Legend
It might stop them blowing it up though.
Welshtel
Vital Football Hero
NO ONE, BUT British RESIDENTS should decide the level of immigration. Not the EU, Not the illegals or the people in other countries. Until relatively recently when we joined the EU and maintained membership we were self determining as a nation. Now it seems any old idiot can put in their 2 penneth and tell us what to do, not least those who have 'immigrated' into the UK and haven't had time yet to pay in much to our economy.
With all the discussion about who should be allowed to enter the EU and how many, no-one seems to appreciate that we are only a small island and we have a self supporting economy that already has high demands on it from those who have entered as asylum seekers and illegally as well as those who have been given access legitimately.
The problem with immigration is that we have always (in the main) had reasonable levels of population growth but many who have migrated from abroad have come from cultures that believe it is good to have large families and though most of us British have believed it right to be able to adequately support our offspring being able to afford the number of children that we bear, so many have come here and put abnormal demands (by our standards) on Social services etc.
We cannot sustain excessive population growth as compared to our historic levels and migrating peoples are already being seen to do that.
Migrants demand housing, hospital and social services and all the other things that we have set up as a nation. EVEN IF, we do as many on here say, that we tax the rich to the hilt etc, there will never be enough in the economy to do all that people wish for as their rights as British citizens.
The future has to be more frugal in terms of what we can expect from our national services. We HAVE to make more money as a nation, employ more people, increase our manufacturing base, and do all those things that increases the countries wealth. We give so much in foreign aid and that in itself cannot be sustained unless we get our country fit again financially. Its in everyone's interest to keep this country properly balanced financially. Most of that will be done by keeping immigration very low in the future.
We also need to put a heavy lid on those that seek to change the society that we have. To limit thinking that allows for more spending is also another task we need to adopt and soon.
Immigration is going to become a huge factor in party manifestos and unless they make promises and keep to them rigidly, they should be ousted from office and not let back in until they keep their word.
With all the discussion about who should be allowed to enter the EU and how many, no-one seems to appreciate that we are only a small island and we have a self supporting economy that already has high demands on it from those who have entered as asylum seekers and illegally as well as those who have been given access legitimately.
The problem with immigration is that we have always (in the main) had reasonable levels of population growth but many who have migrated from abroad have come from cultures that believe it is good to have large families and though most of us British have believed it right to be able to adequately support our offspring being able to afford the number of children that we bear, so many have come here and put abnormal demands (by our standards) on Social services etc.
We cannot sustain excessive population growth as compared to our historic levels and migrating peoples are already being seen to do that.
Migrants demand housing, hospital and social services and all the other things that we have set up as a nation. EVEN IF, we do as many on here say, that we tax the rich to the hilt etc, there will never be enough in the economy to do all that people wish for as their rights as British citizens.
The future has to be more frugal in terms of what we can expect from our national services. We HAVE to make more money as a nation, employ more people, increase our manufacturing base, and do all those things that increases the countries wealth. We give so much in foreign aid and that in itself cannot be sustained unless we get our country fit again financially. Its in everyone's interest to keep this country properly balanced financially. Most of that will be done by keeping immigration very low in the future.
We also need to put a heavy lid on those that seek to change the society that we have. To limit thinking that allows for more spending is also another task we need to adopt and soon.
Immigration is going to become a huge factor in party manifestos and unless they make promises and keep to them rigidly, they should be ousted from office and not let back in until they keep their word.
