Offshore investments

[Topaz]

Canadians about 350, are not paying their fair share in taxes by going off shore to hide their money but corps. are doing also. The former government, the Tories , was suppose to catch these people but it looks like they haven't done a very good job of doing it and I wonder how well THIS government will do. The articles says about 150 billion, with Corps share about 90 Billion but that could be a very small figure. IF, the feds can get to this money, they wouldn't have any trouble getting rid of their deficit but the question is, can and will they do it? http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/04/04/how-offshore-tax-havens-are-costing-canada-billions-of-dollars-a-year.html

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/panama-leak-offshore-records-putin-messi-money-1.3518951

The financial secrets of heads of state, athletes, billionaires and drug lords have been exposed in the latest — and biggest ever — leak of records from an offshore tax haven.

The leak includes 11.5 million confidential documents shedding light on the assets and murky fiscal dealings of everyone from the prime ministers of Iceland and Pakistan to soccer player Leo Messi, movie star Jackie Chan and associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Wikileaks is small potatoes to this scandal. We've suspected/known to a certain extent that the elite hide their money, now we know how extensive it is. Apparently 1/3 of the global wealth is going through these offshore tax havens that are not accountable to anyone.

The records, dating as far back as 1977, come from a little-known but highly influential Panama-based law firm called Mossack Fonseca, which has 500 staff working in 40-plus countries. The firm is one of the world's top creators of shell companies — corporate structures that can be used to hide ownership of assets.

Also this can tie in to the KPMG scandal.

[Topaz]

I've read in the past, that the Christmas Islands are a tax haven also, besides the Caribbean.

[Big Guy]

Personally, these "tax havens" do not bother me since generally, it is their money to do with what they like. Where I see the problem is that they can form shell companies and by-pass restrictions on investments. For example, members of a government can end up trading with countries on which their government has placed trade restrictions. This can and probably does include the lucrative drug and armaments trade.

[msj]

The thing about tax havens is that they are often used to conceal assets.

If you are hiding assets then you are hiding income.

Canada, like most countries in the world, taxes residents based on your entire world wide income.

So you can park your money all you want around the world so long as you report the income earned and, if you qualify, fill out the T1135 form disclosing certain information about your foreign assets.

It is not a big deal as long as you follow the law.

But if you're trying to hide that income from your ex-spouse then you are also hiding it from the government which means tax evasion.

[GostHacked]

Personally, these "tax havens" do not bother me since generally, it is their money to do with what they like. Where I see the problem is that they can form shell companies and by-pass restrictions on investments. For example, members of a government can end up trading with countries on which their government has placed trade restrictions. This can and probably does include the lucrative drug and armaments trade.

The reason it is a tax haven is that they don't pay taxes there, or here. Normally one would be charged with tax evasion. But they call them offshore investments. Too bad I don't have that privilege.

[BubberMiley]

Personally, these "tax havens" do not bother me since generally, it is their money to do with what they like.

Personally, I can't decide between torch or pitchfork. Maybe both.

[eyeball]

But isn't an assault on the filthy rich an assault on us all?

I seem to be missing something here.

[BubberMiley]

It does seem like a lot of people who did nothing wrong are having their private business discussed in public. Unfortunate they are leaked along with all those who did lots wrong.

[eyeball]

True. I guess I'm just thinking about how much solidarity there is for confidentiality when the talk turns to creating truly robust institutions of accountability. Then it's just about a few bad apples.

Speaking of which, remember the revelations that our CRA is apparently more focussed on catching the low-hanging fruit?

Have you considered a red-hot pitchfork?

[Big Guy]

The reason it is a tax haven is that they don't pay taxes there, or here. Normally one would be charged with tax evasion. But they call them offshore investments. Too bad I don't have that privilege.

I do not disagree that to be one of the reasons but I fear the other is to anonymously by-pass economic sanctions that are supposed to be applied by the country in which you earn the monies.

A Canadian could use one of the shell countries created in Panama to buy and sell military equipment to Syria or ISIS.

Money is power and if the spending of it is not transparent then an individual is capable of affecting events detrimental to the country which had allowed them to create those assets.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Tax havenry undermines public trust in the rule of law at home and abroad. In the West, it leaves the road open for Trumpism and, in the developing world, it strengthens the jihadis and other nihilist forces. A large chunk of money from poorer countries in these havens has been stolen or represents the proceeds of other crimes like bribes. This creates deep cynicism about our intentions.

Unfortunately, the country at the heart of this murky trade is Britain - in particular, the City of London, Dependencies (e.g. Channel Islands, Isle of Man) and Overseas Territories (e.g. the British Virgin Islands). Without a hint of shame, Dave Cameron is happy to lecture others about aggressive tax planning while his own family benefited from an offshore vehicle (sounds like a Mercedes) set up by his father.

Edited April 5, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

The Guardian has been an excellent source of info on the Panama Papers. Here is one column on Britain's need for reform:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/06/britain-tainted-cash-panama-papers

[jacee]

canadian_government_has_absolutely_no_clue_how_much_money_its_losing_to_offshore_tax_dodgers

Something seems fishy here:

CRA will "study the concept of the tax gap" along with "its components to understand related methodological and data considerations."

We they're just jumping all over that aren't they?

And this wishy washy Maclean's article says nothing more:

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/canadians-are-right-to-be-angry-over-the-panama-papers-leak/

Looks like the Canadian media are staying away from this issue in droves.

It also looks like the CRA is staying away from the issue.

What's up with that?

Media bosses names on the leak list?

I'll bet!!!

.

[Big Guy]

The process also torpedoes Reaganomics. There is no trickle down benefits if the profits are shuttled to foreign firms instead of being re-invested in the nations economy. Maybe that is why it did not work for Reagan?

[jacee]

Water trickles down.

Money flows up ... up up and away!

?

[blueblood]

Hmmm thats what happens when you try and tag rich people. Maybe their taxes should be lower so that the country gets its tax revenue...

[eyeball]

Hmmm thats what happens when you try and tag rich people. Maybe their taxes should be lower so that the country gets its tax revenue...

Maybe if the 1% actually carried their weight everyone's taxes could be lowered. As I'm sure you'd agree it's wrong when ordinary taxpayers have to pick up the tab that slackers leave behind.

[Bryan]

Maybe if the 1% actually carried their weight everyone's taxes could be lowered. As I'm sure you'd agree it's wrong when ordinary taxpayers have to pick up the tab that slackers leave behind.

The top earners already pay the majority of the tax dollars collected.

[Smallc]

The top earners already pay the majority of the tax dollars collected.

And also make the majority of the money.

[Bryan]

And also make the majority of the money.

The implication was that they don't pay their share -- the fact is they pay a much bigger share, both in total dollars and in percentage of their income.

[msj]

The implication was that they don't pay their share -- the fact is they pay a much bigger share, both in total dollars and in percentage of their income.

So what.

Evading taxes is evading taxes.

We have a progressive tax system and if I can pay taxes legally then so can anyone else.

[Bryan]

So what.

The "so what" is, that's what you get when you try to take too much from people. Be fair and they'll pay it. Rip them off, and they won't.

We have a progressive tax system and if I can pay taxes legally then so can anyone else.

Please tell me you don't think that "offshore" automatically means illegal.

[eyeball]

The "so what" is, that's what you get when you try to take too much from people. Be fair and they'll pay it. Rip them off, and they won't.

I've been meaning to ask, what do social and law and order conservatives think of the perps being fingered in the Panama Papers?

Please tell me you don't think that "offshore" automatically means illegal.

It's pretty much a given it means 1%er's.

[msj]

The "so what" is, that's what you get when you try to take too much from people. Be fair and they'll pay it. Rip them off, and they won't.

They can get political and change the tax system all they want.

Breaking the law by evading taxes is not acceptable.

Please tell me you don't think that "offshore" automatically means illegal.

No, but I'm not naive enough to think these people go to these lengths to ensure they are meeting their tax obligations by reporting their world wide income on their T1's (or T2's) and their foreign assets on their T1135's.