Talk:Tax Justice Network
|WikiProject Taxation||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This article appears to be just a text dump (POV and all, which I have tried to correct a bit) from the TJN website, and could really use a clean-up. I haven't slapped the clean-up tag on it, because it isn't that bad, but it needs a little love. It could also benefit from someone including the main criticisms levelled against the TJN. Also, suprisingly, the article doesn't cite the main thing that separate them from other pro-tax lobbying organisations, viz, that they also attack the structures and systems of developed nations rather than just shooting at offshore financial centres. Legis 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
A "text dump", yes...the article even refers to "our members"! TJN is viewed by many as an intensely political organization, certainly not "non-aligned".
It is of course debatable that there even ARE any "harmful effects" of tax competition; certainly this adjective does not belong in a neutral description.
What is the "secretive world of offshore finance"? At the least, it would be appropriate to place "secretive" in "-".
Likewise, what is the "shadow economy of tax havens"? If such highly-charged terms are to be used, perhaps they should be in "-". Chris. Fulker 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the secretive world of offshore finance? The simplest answer is that in way too many jurisdictions it is possible to conceal the identity of the beneficial owner (the person who is actually making the money) behind a series of structures - the best-known being the numbered Swiss bank account (which is now history). This ensures that the said beneficial owner can't be taxed. It's much like the police trying to arrest someone for motoring offences when the driving licence only has a PO Box address. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- A bad analogy, as the beneficial owner is taxed on the income of that capital at 35% by the Swiss FTA, of which he can maybe reclaim 20% if he declares the lot to his taxman at home. And lots of people are secretive, even governments. The TJN is a tiny outfit hoping to sell a big story.22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Social security taxes
I don't know much about the Tax Justice Network but have run into it from time to time. I was reading through the area "According to the group, progressive taxation requires that:". I didn't know if the area on social security taxes should be expanded to include aspects of distribution. I don't disagree that the SS tax is regressive in the U.S. and removing the cap would be progressive but there is no mention of the benefits. Meaning the distribution of SS benefits is regressive as the poor get much and the rich get very little of the benefits. With removing such a cap, it really changes such a system from a social security safety net to welfare redistribution. I understand the concept from a tax perspective and overall the income tax system is progressive but does the TJN consider the distribution aspects in regard to the taxation of this particular program? While arguing for progressive taxation is one area of politics, welfare distribution is another and I'm not sure the article clearly defines TJN's politics in this regard. Not passing judgment.. just interested in understanding. Morphh (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have found the TJN's 2009 accounts and will ref them. A £3 company, full name "The Tax Justice Network International Secretariat Limited". "The company is controlled by the Tax Justice Network Association Sans But Lucratif", a not-for-profit based in Belgium. Though foreign-controlled, it takes advantage of what jaundiced people might describe in other cases as a "tax loophole" in UK law - This report has been prepared in accordance with the special provisions of Part VII of the Companies Act 1985 relating to small companies.
Its auditors limit their work as follows: "This report is made solely to the company's members, as a body, in accordance with Section 235 of the Companies Act 1985. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the company's members those matters we are required to state to them in an auditors' report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the company and the company's members as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed."126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
There was some recent editing which included some unencyclopedic text regarding Richard Murphy as founder. I haven't looked at it in depth, but it seems the edit is broadly correct - Richard Murphy was not the founder, despite widely being credited as such (including on his Wikipedia page). However, I think the edits would benefit from decent sourcing when someone has a second. If I get a chance I will take a look at it myself but probably won't be able to do so soon. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Additional: I note that his bio on the Guardian website lists him as an advisor to TJN, but doesn't indicate he is a founder.  --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Removed POV from publications
HI, I just removed some quite blatant POV from the publications section. In the part where it states that the money saved from tax could achieve the UN's goal there was originally a sentence at the end that said "Such a scenario is very unlikely if one considers the history of the world's governments. It would be far more likely to be spent on war and luxurious proceedings for those in control of the government."
Also further down a section refered to the Tax evasion problem as a "Global Crisis" which I removed, although i'm not sure if that is entirely POV, although it was unsourced and the article does flow still with it removed. Finally someone put quotation marks around the TJN mentioning they did a Major Study which gave it the look as if the TJN was embelishing their work. I personally don't know wether they are or not so I removed the speech marks and reduced it down to just study for balancing. I know the bit about the governments above has to be deleted as POV but if another person thinks the other two should be undone than feel free to do it. --Mishka Shaw (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)