I have to say that I find the attitude I quoted below from the link, ever more prevalent in today's political and social climate, to be extremely dangerous in how one-sided it is.For one thing, competition is a cornerstone of better development. Yes, it sometimes needs to be moderated but as a basic rule of anything economic, it works at delivering more and better options and keeping exploitative tendencies in check. This applies to the regulatory frameworks of countries just as much as to any other economic actor and the just as many of us would probably agree that it's a bad idea for every company in X industry to collude on fixing prices, the notion of stamping out competitive tax regimes among nation states should be looked at with the same suspicion and for the same reasons of curtailing abuse against those who have to pay for everything.
Secondly, at what point does it allow for the question of just how much government should be allowed to spend? The entire onus should not simply be placed on crushing tax avoidance, and a serious debate about the size, scope and sheer spending done by governments today needs to balance things out. This isn't an argument against social programs or helping the poor it's just a recognition of the basic fact that a tremendous amount of money extracted by states gets wasted on all sorts of immense bloat. We complain about bureaucratic mismanagement by various countries all the time but for some reason should applaud their obsessive efforts to crush any exit valves on abusive tax practices by them, and not just tax avoiders or evaders?
With the support of the G20 and the EU, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) therefore drew up international standards in 2014 to enable countries to exchange bank information automatically. More than a hundred countries have so far decided to adhere to these standards, almost half of which have already started to exchange information in 2017. Participating countries must undertake to treat the data they receive confidentially and only for tax purposes.
These rules also aim to create a level playing field for all financial centres by putting an end to tax havens. Countries - or territories - that do not meet the criteria set out in international standards or that are not cooperative are included in grey or black lists of the OECD and the EU. “Defensive measures", in other words sanctions, are envisaged against them.
Secondly, at what point does it allow for the question of just how much government should be allowed to spend? The entire onus should not simply be placed on crushing tax avoidance, and a serious debate about the size, scope and sheer spending done by governments today needs to balance things out. This isn't an argument against social programs or helping the poor it's just a recognition of the basic fact that a tremendous amount of money extracted by states gets wasted on all sorts of immense bloat. We complain about bureaucratic mismanagement by various countries all the time but for some reason should applaud their obsessive efforts to crush any exit valves on abusive tax practices by them, and not just tax avoiders or evaders?
With the support of the G20 and the EU, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) therefore drew up international standards in 2014 to enable countries to exchange bank information automatically. More than a hundred countries have so far decided to adhere to these standards, almost half of which have already started to exchange information in 2017. Participating countries must undertake to treat the data they receive confidentially and only for tax purposes.
These rules also aim to create a level playing field for all financial centres by putting an end to tax havens. Countries - or territories - that do not meet the criteria set out in international standards or that are not cooperative are included in grey or black lists of the OECD and the EU. “Defensive measures", in other words sanctions, are envisaged against them.