Bipartisan amendment forces UK government to impose transparency on its offshore tax havens

Originally published at:


This will ensure transparency on the offshores tax-haven under Commonwealth/British Isles/so on? For example, what about Jersey? On those island one of the biggest corrupts on Brazil put lots of money.


Tory MPs argued against the amendment, saying it would just push the dark money to other empires’ tax-havens.

That’s how depraved this party is: “if criminals are going to try to hide and launder their money we don’t want to lose that business to competitors.”

See also:


Pretty much the exact same excuse they give for arms sales as well :frowning:


The usual response about countries having their own tax rules.

Which countries should be invaded or blockaded to change their tax rules?

Second the real reason for tax havens is protection against bail ins. Never mentioned.

It’s part of the current zeitgeist that there is consent.

Consent means that its informed consent, and that you have the right to say no without being subject to punishment as a result.

People are not allowed to use violence to overrule other people who say no.

Presumed consent isn’t allowed either.

Equally, the right for a group to say, we’re going to overrule others saying no to get what we want isn’t allowed.

Now, how do you know if I’m taking about storing data on people, sex, or money?

Why shouldn’t the same rules apply to all?

Tax havens are just one symptom of people saying I do not consent.

Just like when I steal something from a shop it’s because I don’t consent to paying for it?

Although I’d look more favourably on someone stealing a loaf of bread to feed themself, rather than someone funnelling their money through a tax haven to add an extra 10% onto their bank account.

(Whilst reducing the tax income of the country, so there’s less welfare programs, so that people are forced to steal food).


Just like when I steal something from a shop it’s because I don’t consent to paying for it?

Why would the shopkeeper consent to you taking it without paying?

Or are you complaining that those off shoring their assets are freeloading?

Why do you assume the shopkeeper would know that he was being stolen from at all? Do you imagine that the shoplifter would announce it as part of some perfectly rational transaction in the free marketplace of stealing? That’s as ridiculous a proposition as assuming that someone offshoring their assets to evade* taxation would announce to the government that they’re doing so.

[* not avoid. Somehow I think this distinction needs to be made clear to you]

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.