Not only a RACIST but thick with it.

Gambling Tax Reform: new rules from 1 December 2014

The new rules will affect:-
the remote gambling industry who offer remote betting and gaming to UK consumers from outside the UK

Nowhere does the UK government single out Gibraltar, it is a blanket tax and the UK make that clear. Therefore they are note making racist comments.

But hey ho despite others pointing out your failings you cannot see it and I guess you never will

If I was in any other jurisdiction and you made such racist remarks about it I would defend that jurisdiction as I do Gibraltar.

If I was a small minded bigot I would take offence at your continued use of the racist term but I put it down to you having a few senior moments. I do not single out Gibraltar for tax evasion but as I reminded you this is a Gibraltar forum. Back to your senior moments nowhere have I suggested that HMG is targetting Gibraltar. Gibraltar is just one of those countries where some companies active in the UK register to avoid paying UK tax. Taxes that should go to those in need in the UK.

Yes you are

Yes you do

No it's not this is a thread on the Spainsh section of a worldwide forum.
The new Point of Consumption Tax apllies to any supplier anywhere in the world including Spain and Portugal which are also on this forum.


As for this post:-

I am happy to inform you that my prescriptions are provided free by the Gibraltar Government.

However may I sugest you go and see a Trick Cyclist.

You should get your glasses checked as well as I mentioned the Cayman Islands and Andorra as other examples of tax havens for companies seeking to avoid tax. If you do not want aspects and activities in Gibraltar discussed then just re name it Today news from the Gibraltar ministry of propoganda. But then that is what it is for most of the time. How is the move to New Zealand coming along ??

OK guys. Please calm down a bit.

I haven't seen any posts that I would, as a mod, consider racist, but I have seen a few posts that are bordering on personal attacks and I think, by now, we know what happens to members guilty of that breach of the forum rules.

Remember that we now have a zero tolerance to such posts so if you continue then you can guess the consequences.


So please, let's just get on with a reasonable discussion.

The argument against Gib (In this case) seems to be that it (presumably, unfairly) imposes a lower tax rate on business than those who impose a far higher rates of taxation.

Without thinking through it (as certain contributors here consistently do) it may seem to be a legitimate argument until of course you realise that if there were no competition for tax revenues - in other words, all taxes same everywhere, then we'd all be paying about 75% income tax and 40% VAT.

What's the basis for the 75% and 40%?

We obviously have different views on what constitutes racism.

I have made my point and will leave it up to others to make their own decisions.

Let's move on.

Navy reads warnings to Spanish tug

Date: 11 January 2015

The Royal Navy read warnings to Spanish state vessel ‘Maria Zambrano’ on Sunday afternoon, after she changed course within British Gibraltar Territorial Waters off the North Mole.

The 40-metre long tug was asked to leave local waters and did so shortly afterwards, heading on to Algeciras.

The Convent is expected to protest the incident with the Spanish Government. The Foreign Office’s well-established position is that incursions of this sort are in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; a violation of British sovereignty, but not a threat to it.

GBC | Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation

Governments particularly the current UK government has realised that there is a limit both practically and politically to the tax that can be taken from the average tax payer.
While the UK economy has expanded the tax from individuals, vat etc has not kept pace and cannot finance expenditure.
Governments have the option of limiting the increase in public spending and closing the loopholes that companies and wealthier individuals exploit to reduce their tax bills.
No one is suggesting that the tax rates for companies be increased but that they pay their fair share in the countries where they operate.
Gibraltar is just one location where UK companies have registered to avoid paying UK tax.
95% of the population cannot do this .

Governments have to be able to balance the tax-take against the expenditure on things like benefits, health and defence etc. In a global competitive economic environment, tax is one tool for attracting inward investment and creating employment (which increases tax take). Set taxes too high and employers take their whole company and its jobs overseas - set it too low and there is not enough to fund Government plans. Of course in a large mixed economy then taxes are raised not just from income and corporates but from manufacturing and services as well as natural resources, agriculture etc - sweating the economic assets as it were. Whereas the UK has a varied economy and hence sources of income Gibraltar does not have such avenues and hence has to rely on tax-take mainly from financial activities. You can hardly blame Gibraltar for that.
If you want to blame someone then you should blame the tax laws and regime in the UK which is set up so that tax avoidance is perfectly legal. If the UK wants financial services (including gambling) stay onshore then it is up to the UK and not Gibraltar (nor Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Caymans etc. etc ) to do something about it.
However, despite the furore kicked up in the newspapers and the lip service that the Government makes about stopping up the loopholes - it should be recognised that the tax income from the employment provided by Amazon, Starbucks etc far far exceeds the tax take from corporation tax etc. and if the Government were to really clamp down on this corporate tax avoidance then many of these companies would just cease trading in the UK which would be economic disaster for the UK. So the UK wins big time and Gibraltar continues to thrive as a by-product of considered UK economic policy.

Y YB I have no issue with a company setting its self up where it chooses but if it trades in the UK it should pay its share of UK tax on any profits attributable to that business. If companies do not want to be open with such information then a tax on UK turnover would apply.
I doubt that any company would withdraw from the UK particularly when it accounts for a significant % of its busniness. Why should the tax paid by UK employees as a % of income exceed that paid by their emp!oyer ?

John Galliano to make highly anticipated comeback

Date: 12 January 2015

Gibraltar-born fashion designer John Galliano makes his comeback to women’s fashion today with an event in London to showcase the “Artisanal” range from fashion house Maison Martin Margiela.

It’s Galliano’s first solo show following his humiliating fall from grace in 2011, when an alcohol-fuelled anti-Semitic rant in Paris got him fired first from Christian Dior and later from the John Galliano label he founded in 1984. The 54-year-old designer has made many apologies for his behavior 4 years ago, recognising he was “emotionally and mentally bankrupt” at the time.

This afternoon, at the last day of London’s fashion week, the focus will again be on Galliano’s creations. Having won British Fashion Designer of the Year four times in the past, young fans and seasoned fashion commentators will be waiting to see if still has the magic touch.

GBC | Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation

Prosperity and wealth is the engine of any (free, democratic) economy.

If nothing else, Governments love to spend money (and in truth, we, the population, too oft naively demand that the government spend endlessly on our behalf -so that "we don't have to". Right, then.).

Another thing Governments love is maintaining 'special' relationships with Goliath employers - you know, those mega-corporations who employ tens of thousands of domestic taxpayers? Yeah, those.

My point is this: if governments had no fear of capital flight for over-taxation, then there's absolutely no barrier to taxing businesses and the rest of the population into oblivion to pay for all the things we want 'them' to pay for - and whatever else bureaucrats decide to spend their (our) money on.

Lucky for us, there's competition for those tax revenues. Some countries have this crazy notion of increasing tax revenues by encouraging wealth and prosperity rather than penalising it.

As it turns out, most anyone can legally take advantage of that. Well, for now anyway. Until we finally make it illegal to reside or establish business in another country, then we can enjoy <variably> bearable taxation.

In the mean time, my son is starting an online business. His accountant is recommending that he register the business in the Luxembourg, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Ireland, or the US or UK rather than in his country of residence, because of the tax advantages for startups. And frankly, it does only seem logical that his chances of success would be greater if the business is subjected to fewer burdens.

Or... would it be wrong to make such wise business decisions, simply because he 'owes' it to his country of residence to unwisely pay more in startup and operations costs for no tangible gain?

..or because those alternative tax jurisdictions are somehow "dubious" for imposing less tax and bureaucratic burdens than those who otherwise impose many more burdens on entrepreneurs, in their short-sighted belief that it will increase tax revenues? After all, a higher price means more money, right?

Or... are those alternative jurisdictions simply... wiser?

Do you believe that if businesses had no choice of jurisdictions and tax liabilities, then it would somehow be easier or fairer for David to compete with Goliath? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I'd argue that only the established mega-corporations would get all the breaks, operate much more like monopolies, and be equally as inefficient and customer-obtuse as any government bureaucracy.

Thank god we have those alternatives. Otherwise 75% income tax and 40% VAT could actually be a conservative estimate.

Gotcha. I remember back in the 70s when the EU was going to mean a common Market, common Laws and common Taxation.
1 out of three sort of, not bad I guess. Italy as a major player has taxation at around 53% (the general picture for individuals, Gov figures) with 22% Vat (I think), they have just over 1700 different taxes and 170,000 laws, yes, One hundred and seventy thousand different laws, the exact figure is not known but it increases monthly.. How do you make anything common with an example like this. and where simple legal cases last over 20 years.
Italy is a country where most of the politicians are lawyers, hence........