Talk:Offshore financial centre/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Leading OFCs

Deleted Labuan as a leading financial centre. Seriously, are you kidding? In the KPMG report Labuan is relegated to "other" with less than 1% of the world market share. There must be at least 12 other OFCs which would rank ahead of it. Legis 07:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not looking for a revert war, but could we please try and keep the list of "main offshore jurisdictions" to the main offshore jurisdictions. This is an Encyclopedia, not an advertising forum for every tinpot offshore wannabee to sponge some free marketing. There is a more complete list on the List of offshore financial centres. Legis 10:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure... It makes sense that Bermuda would not be listed on the List of main offshore financial centres. Is this an oversight? Stevenmitchell 17:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think it used to be in there, but it must have gotten take out during one of the revert wars over that section. Legis (talk - contributions) 18:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a definite consensus is in favour of the merge, then I am happy to help, but I think it may prove controversial. I suspect the first difficulty is deciding under which title they should be merged. Possibly merge them under a third term ('offshore jurisdiction')? But if people if people are generally in favour, I am happy to chip in. Legis 07:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
'Offshore jurisidiction' would surely cover a wider remit than either OFC or TH. As the article says, tax haven is an old fashioned term. Also, the TH article lacks the depth and perspective of OFC and is too listy. Go for it Legis, as OFC! simonthebold 21:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's wait and see if any dissenting voices are raised for the proposed merge. Otherwise I'll try and put a consolidated article on the OFC next week and change TH to a redirect. Legis 07:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that there is an important distinction to be made between an OFC and a Tax Haven, and I would use the UK to illustrate. To my mind, to qualify as an OFC, a significant amount of the territory's GDP ought to come from financial services supplied to non residents. To qualify as a tax haven, the territory must attract funds because its taxation regime is lower than other territories that compete for those funds. The UK clearly attracts funds because it has a low tax regime, although it would not qualify as an offshore finance centre. I think as they stand, the two articles reflect the distinction that I see.--Andrew Gardner 13:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I take Andrews point, however I still think the pages should be merged and the disctinction between OFC and TH could be discussed in the article. The TH article is too "listy". simonthebold 11:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Two articles should not be merged simply because there are issues or inadequacies with one of them. OFCs and Tax Havens are different. Some OFCs are THs and some THs are OFCs. In an OFC banking and ancillary services are offered but taxes are not necessarily low. In a TH taxes are zero or low but there is not necessarily any banks offering "offshore services". However, many OFCs are THs and v.v. And Norwegians and Swedes have similar languages and both live in Scandinavia but there's no merging of articles happening there. Note also that those using the services of the banks in an OFC and those taking advantage of the low taxes in a TH are often very different! Vote against merge. Paul Beardsell 23:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tag removed - reasons directly above and at tax haven. I have added requests for citations which attempt to conflate the two concepts. Paul Beardsell 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now what do we do? There is now a new reference to a book (which I do not have and which is not online) to support the assertion that the term "tax haven" is not used in modern times. Yet, this Google search for the term returns over 600,000 web pages. Obviously the book, if it says what we are led to believe it says, is wrong. Paul Beardsell 09:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to find a leading text on the subject more authoritative than a Google search. Request the book from your local library and take a look at it. Research on a subject does not begin and end with what can be found by a Google search. Legis 11:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No, of course it does not and I never said any different. However, the assertion that "tax haven" is an old fashioned term is directly contradicted by the Google search, which, as I am sure you would agree, contains mostly modern references. Also, you should beware of believing everything you read, even in hard copy. I will remove the assertion given that my rebuttal has not been countered. Paul Beardsell 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to get into a pointless revert war over a small sentence in a long article, but I think the term tax haven is really used today in two contexts: (1) spammy websites trying to sell products, and (2) governmental or supranational body reports with an axe to grind. Within the professional community (by which I mean those who work with international tax mitigation structures), the term "tax haven" is rarely used, and fell out of common use in the early 90s - I know because I have been practising in the field during the relevant time. That said, I have to admit, the FT still bylines any articles about BVI, Cayman or Bermuda under the category "tax havens". But I think you want to be very careful about conducting your edits on the basis of "I don't care what experts in the field say, that view conflicts with what appears to me as a layman as a result of a google search, so I'll just delete it." Not an approved method under Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Legis 08:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You mischaracterise my position and my actions. I disagree profoundly with your assertion that the term "tax haven" is used predominantly as you say, and you offer no evidence to support it. I cannot work out who are the "experts" you refer to, unless you refer to yourself, as you are not quoting anywhere what "they" say. I am far from confident that "those who work with international tax mitigation structures" are the ones who really are in a position to say what a tax haven is or isn't as they most definitely do have an axe to grind - their own wallets. I may be a layman, but a widely read one with a particular interest in tax havens. Also, if you are going to quote a book as reference, and that book is not readily available (not in my local library), then it would be helpful to quote text from the book. Let's be plain: The term "tax haven" has not fallen into disuse, it means exactly what it says, it may not be professional jargon or obfuscation such as "OFC" or "tax mitigation", but that is a point in the term's favour! "OFC" is a neologism and, as is admitted in the 1st para of the article, is a term which defies precise definition. Paul Beardsell 03:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I am guilty mischaracterising the timeline. You put a "citation needed" tag on a statement that you disagreed with. I provided a citation within 24 hours. You indicated that you disagreed with it, citing no more authority than a google search, and within 48 hours of putting a citation needed tag on the statement, you had deleted the statement, the citation supporting it and tag. If any aspect of the foregoing sentence is incorrect, please correct me. That, to me, seems a fairly high handed approach. But no doubt you feel satisfied with the outcome. Legis 10:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "ring fence" mean? The definition I found in the dictionary doesn't make any sense here. Also, as a layman, I know what a tax-haven is, I came here because I didn't know what an OFC was. It was interesting to learn about the other uses of OFCs, but the article is kind of hard to understand and needs major improvement. I don't know if should be merged with "tax-haven" or just cleaned up. A tax-haven is only one kind of OFC, so maybe it should be a section of this page. But "tax-haven" is so extensive that I think it should stand on its own. I think the misunderstanding above may have caused the article to be abandoned before it was well developed.

Will someone please adopt this poor little article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The myoclonic jerk (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Caption

the caption includes "small European mountainous countries." this should be much more specific, as it clearly refers to switzerland.138.88.147.50 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is an oblique reference to Andorra and Liechtenstein. Despite what you read in the press, Switzerland is not regarded as OFC in the classic sense. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate vs. illegitimate reasons

So circumventing liability legislation or market regulation is somehow more legit than evading taxes or defrauding creditors? I see the idea behind it, but I don't believe it's consistent with the neutral point of view. --20% (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I came on here to write this exact thing, since I believe that tax evasion is legitimate. 66.90.195.205 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Add one more voice to the clamour. Legitimate vs. Illegitimate should simply be left out of that part of the article. Seems as if all the "legitimate" reasons are "evasive" in one way or another. It is very difficult for me, as a lay reader of an encyclopedic article on economic activities, to grasp how evasion of legitimate laws or regulations can be called legitimate. If you need a dichotomy, evasive vs non-evasive might be more precise and more neutral. Otherwise, thanks for explaining a complex issue which is usually oversimplified by people exactly like me. Anewcharliega (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa. The "legitimate" and "illegitimate" language was something that I originally put in. Appreciate those terms are NPOV. May be simpler just to switch them to "lawful" and "unlawful". --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dutch television had an interesting documentary (March 25th 2013) about offshore economics. Here a link to the English version. Michiel Mans, Amsterdam http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/backlight/tax-free-tour.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.108.53.184 (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Tax purposes

I noticed this recent addition:

Recent surveys of offshore practitioners suggest that as little as 10.3% of offshore structuring may be tax driven (down from 15.9% the previous year). [citing "Offshore 2020 survey" (PDF). Offshore Incorporations Limited. p. 20. Retrieved 11 June 2014.]

Firstly, that's not a neutral source. It's by an organization whose sole purpose is nothing other than the promotion of offshore finance utilization (so I can pretty much guess who added it without looking at the history, but I digress.) But worse, that's not at all what Figure 15 on page 21 says. Only individual tax planning fell from 15% to 10%, but "asset protection and wealth management," "funds management," and "investment holdings for corporate" purposes grew or remained the interests of larger number of offshore center users, and all of those involve much larger magnitudes of tax avoidance by corporations (including individuals' shell companies) instead of individuals. I am removing the passage and the source. EllenCT (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Offshore financial centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Offshore financial centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Offshore financial centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Offshore financial centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Offshore financial centre/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

Needs more citations, the tax aspect of the article could be expanded.EECavazos 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

==WP Tax Priority==

High priority because likely a highly viewed article and the concept has a global presence.EECavazos 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 01:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Updated this for the Conduit/Sink study

Updated this for the major investigation on Conduit and Sinks which I think is both scientific and helps with many debates regarding what is an OFC Britishfinance (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-wrote definitions section

Re-wrote the OFC definition section as it seemed to have deviated from focusing on high quality academic or IMF sources, and had become very discursive whereas the consensus amongst the IMF and academics on OFCs is quite close. Also added in sub-section on the consensus over OFCs and tax havens which is more contemporary. Finally, re-wrote the Conduit and Sink OFC section to align with other wikis in this area. Conduit and Sinks are the biggest development in OFCs since the IMF 2007 paper.Britishfinance (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Is Japan really on the levels of Bermuda and the Cayman Islands?

How do they qualify what an "offshore financial centre" is in that map? ( SailingOn (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC) )

totally agree, this map does not seem to bear a relation to OFCs - it has Thailand, Japan, and New Zealand? it also references a "big 7" which I have no idea were it comes from. going to delete this.Britishfinance (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

New OFC lists section

Added a new OFC lists section that simply lists the OFCs from the IMF reports (2000 and 2007) and split into 3 groups for 2000 list. Deleted the existing "Indexes and Rankings" section as FSI lists are NOT equal to OFC lists (related, but different); also the Off-Shore Financial Centres list from the Global Financial Services Index are a SUBSET of OFCs (in the IMF sense) - both of these are misleading lists to include in this article and only add to the confusion over what is an OFC/tax haven/Conduit-Sink etc.Britishfinance (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Offshore_financial_centre/Archive_1&oldid=1062545366"