O/T Who's been taken for pillocks

[Exiletyke]

The papers showed how some of the world’s wealthiest individuals and businesses had been able to shelter their money in companies that did not bear their name, buy luxury goods and homes at cheaper prices, or invest in “vehicles” that kept the tax they paid to a minimum. Most of this was entirely lawful, but that was not the point. A fundamental ethical question: is this fair?
More than 300 economists, including the Nobel prize winner Sir Angus Deaton, signed a letter to world leaders that argued: “The existence of tax havens does not add to overall global wealth or wellbeing; they serve no useful economic purpose.”
Thanks to the Paradise Papers leak, the world will get a chance to scrutinise and pass judgment on the tapestry of schemes and networks politicians say they find so unpalatable – and many ordinary people find offensive and unfair.

The papers showed how some of the world’s wealthiest individuals and businesses had been able to shelter their money in companies that did not bear their name, buy luxury goods and homes at cheaper prices, or invest in “vehicles” that kept the tax they paid to a minimum. Most of this was entirely lawful, but that was not the point. A fundamental ethical question: is this fair?
More than 300 economists, including the Nobel prize winner Sir Angus Deaton, signed a letter to world leaders that argued: “The existence of tax havens does not add to overall global wealth or wellbeing; they serve no useful economic purpose.”
Thanks to the Paradise Papers leak, the world will get a chance to scrutinise and pass judgment on the tapestry of schemes and networks politicians say they find so unpalatable – and many ordinary people find offensive and unfair.

I agree entirely Nozzer but do you know what will happen .........feck all
When a pension scheme is used by way of comparison to the Queen & who amongst us has looked at our fund providers
& thus the Queen is not culpable
There are one or two differences here though
1 The Queen employs these people who do the grunt work I dont employ my fund managers
2The Queen has control over them I have little or no control over my fund managers save from raising questions at their next AGM

The question remains Why are these "tax havens" even in existence if not for nefarious practices designed to avoid paying taxes into the exchequer of the country in which the wealth originated
Spin can be put on why but in the end it is entirely wrong but not illegal we will be constantly told

[KerrAvon]

I agree entirely Nozzer but do you know what will happen .........feck all
When a pension scheme is used by way of comparison to the Queen & who amongst us has looked at our fund providers
& thus the Queen is not culpable
There are one or two differences here though
1 The Queen employs these people who do the grunt work I dont employ my fund managers
2The Queen has control over them I have little or no control over my fund managers save from raising questions at their next AGM

The question remains Why are these "tax havens" even in existence if not for nefarious practices designed to avoid paying taxes into the exchequer of the country in which the wealth originated
Spin can be put on why but in the end it is entirely wrong but not illegal we will be constantly told

Who do you think pays your fund managers? Do you think they are doing the job for free? Most will be doing an average job and charging you a lot for the privilege. That you don't ask questions and choose to look where your money is invested is your choice, not theirs.

The tax havens exist because the countries that host them do very well out of it and because there will always be a market for their services (by and large, people don't like paying tax, whether you or like it or not).