Ah, yes…

While the IMF has already named London as an onshore tax haven,

That\’s the same IMF report that said that Monaco was not a tax haven is it?

The actual calculation was that if a place had a financial services sector larger than needed to service purely domestic needs then therefore it must be catering to foreigners. And of course the only reason for foreigners to use foreign financial services must be to avoid or evade tax.

Which, in a globalised world, one with hte division of labour, specialisation and trade, is of course absurd. It\’s like saying that because Rolls Royce is UK based, because the UK manufactures vastly more jet engines than it consumes, therefore the UK is a jet engine haven.

Which, to be frank, is bollocks.

2 comments on “Ah, yes…

  1. Well said Tim. The definition of “tax haven” is so elastic that any high-taxing government trying to bully its more fiscally responsible neighbours is going to moan and wail about these places. The US is a particularly bad offender in this regard at present, and yet it has a tax haven within its own borders – the state of Delaware.

  2. “Never waste a good crisis” is the best (the only?) bon mot yet to come from the Emperor Obama’s stable.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.