Talk:Tax haven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh... I know it's good advise and all, but should Wikipedia be giving tax advise?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, articles should just list facts, not give advice or opinions. The advice section could be reworded to be more factual ("Most people claim tax havens aren't worth the hassle..."). --Patik 21:19, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hasn't Gibraltar changed from 1 Jan? jguk 09:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Tax Advice 2 Gibraltar 3 Excemption of housing expences for US Nationals 4 Norfolk Island is also a tax haven 5 Merge 6 Money laundering

[edit] Tax Advice

Shouldn't people learn how to reaad? No tax advice is given.

I agree, let it be the way it is Sandeid

[edit] Gibraltar

There has been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing about Gibraltar and the list of low tax jurisdictions. I think Gibraltar clearly belongs on the list - it is one of the leading offshore financial centres (see: OFC Article). It is not listed as non-cooperative on any of the OECD or FATF lists (and, as far as I know, never has been), but then neither have most of the other larger and better regulated OFCs (with the exception of Cayman, which was originally on the FATF list, but is now off the list). If there is to be a list within the article (and I am still not sure what it really adds to the list at: List of offshore financial centres), then Gibraltar should be on it. Cooperative or non-cooperative, ring fenced tax regime or non-ring fenced, it is still an OFC by pretty much any applicable criterea. Legis 11:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excemption of housing expences for US Nationals

A the new tax bill passed through the US Government now does away with this excemption for housing in forgein countires and it is now subjected to tax as well. The Economist had an article about it whith int he last month or so. Philbentley 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norfolk Island is also a tax haven

This could be possibly added to the appropriate section. See Norfolk Island article on wikipedia for further info.--220.101.160.7 09:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Offshore Financial Centre and Tax haven cover essentially the same ground, only OFC is by far the better article. I suggest we let Legis handle the merge as he has contributed so much in this area.

simonthebold 08:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have put my comments in Talk:Offshore Financial Centre. Legis 07:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read any of this, but on the surface, "tax haven" and "Offshore Tax Centre" seem to mean two different things. A merger seems unnecessary. 129.98.214.113 05:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

An "Offshore Centre" (aka "Low-Tax regime") is a place that allows people to "park" their money and save themselves from paying the higher taxes (usually in their home country). A "Tax Haven" is a place that includes what is an "Offshore"-is plus---- they hide personal information to all other institutions and governments. Basically hiding whomever-- has money in their country leading to things like money laundering. etc. A Tax haven is what all big countries are against- an Offshore Centre is a country that brings much needed competition to the International monetary markets. "Low-Tax regimes" usually have a framework of bilateral-agreements spelling out exactly on-what grounds the government in that jurisdiction will give up a holder's info during an investigation, a Tax Haven though will tend to remain "hush-hush" even if they suspect something criminal might be in the works using their jurisdiction. CaribDigita 14:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not correct. A "tax haven" is a place where taxes are zero or low. An "offshore financial centre" is a place in another country where banks etc exist to provide financial services. Some THs are OFCs and some OFCs are THs but they are not the same. Further: You can cheat your taxes by "hiding personal information" without taking advantage of a TH so "hiding personal information" is not an essential part of a TH. A TH can be completely open with personal info and you can take advantage of it. (Unless you are a USA citizen, moving youself and your assets to a TH means you are no longer subject to the tax rules of your country of citizenship.) So CaribDigital's assertions are very largely incorrect. Paul Beardsell 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Different concepts, different articles. No merge. Paul Beardsell 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there not a difference between individuals that choose to live six months or over in a low tax jurisdiction (such as Monaco or Switzerland) for personal tax reasons, versus areas in the world (such as Panama or Nevis) that levy almost zero taxes on companies, trusts or foundations (i.e. see Category:offshore finance)? For example, a country that levies low taxes on offshore companies may still levy high taxes on individuals that choose to live there, and vica-verca. nirvana2013 18:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Support for this idea seems far from substantial. I note the WP preference is for different articles for different concepts. The conflation of separate concepts by some should not allow the waters to be muddied. If we go down this path relentlessly then WP will be just one article as all concepts are related, one way or another. Merge tag removed. Paul Beardsell 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Money laundering

I recently deleted a comment about money laundering as it is at best(!) only tangentially related to the subject of this article. The following argument (pasted from my Talk page) argues against this:

I note your edit on tax havens, but unless you have really strong views, I would suggest reverting it to reinclude the relevant sentence. The term "tax haven" is not a comment a nation's tax laws simplicter, but a broader criticism on the probity of financial structuring within a country. I think that the comments made by a director of Tax Justice Network in an interview with the BBC summarising that evidence showing that the UK was as bad as any traditional tax haven in relation to these points is information that can very reasonably be included, and follows on logically from the earlier paragraphs (esp Incentives for the tax haven relating to money laundering in the article. Legis 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot follow this argument (and I have tried!) so let me say why I strongly disagree about the inclusion of money laundering information here. That a country may be a haven for money laundering is not relevant to an article on tax havens. All they have in common is the use of the word "haven". All money launderers are operating illegally, by definition. Users of a tax haven are (usually) operating legally. [If they were illegally dodging (i.e. evading not avoiding) taxes they usually wouldn't need a tax haven.] All the tax avoidance measures listed in the tax haven article are legal! Users of a tax haven are, by definition, avoiding tax. Some may also be evading tax but not necessarily. Money launderers are usually keen that their fake business pays tax so as to legitimise the fake profits arising from the laundering. Next we'll have comments in the article about which countries have good boat havens. Paul Beardsell 13:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it comes back to the same point about nomenclature. People who interpret the word "tax haven" as being simply all about tax will properly take Paul's view. People who think the term "tax havens" when used today is a reference to financial probity and regulatory oversight would, naturally, take the view that an article on tax havens should contain comments on financial probity and regulatory oversight. I tend to fall into the second camp because whenever you hear the word tax haven used today, it is usually being used by someone who has an axe to grind. People within the profession rarely use it at all. But I can't honestly get worked up about it for the same reason that I can't get worked up about the proposed merge between tax haven and offshore financial centre. The terms just mean different things to different people, and ultimately the article will find its own middle ground somewhere. At the moment the article contains some material on money laundering, which I was just building on, but I don't think the edit that was removed was "key". I take Paul's point entirely on the last sentence; there are indeed jurisdictions which sometimes get called "tax havens" only because they provide an excellent place to register a ship or aircraft. Legis 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the humourous intent but, to be explicit, (and I know you know this), a boat haven is a place safe from prevailing winds and waves. Nothing to do with taxes. Just as a haven for battered women is nothing to do with tax either. "Haven" = "safe place". Paul Beardsell 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But correct nomenclature is very important. Two ways of looking at this: (1) Allowing sloppiness allows sloppiness. (2) If we allow the term tax haven to imply "location lacking regulatory probity" (or whatever) then we will have to find/invent a new term which means tax haven - a "location where some taxes are very low". If you are not a language purist we can ignore (1). But what about (2)? Paul Beardsell 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means have a link to the money laundering article here. But the correct place for info on money laundering is in its own article. Please put your interesting information about that topic there. Proper use of the WP namespace (i.e. nomenclature) is important so as to avoid duplication of info making for impossible maintenance. Paul Beardsell 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Note also that this article, like almost all WP articles, starts by first defining the topic. No mention of money laundering. Paul Beardsell 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)