Tax Avoidance

[blade1889]

Would you take the option if you had desires on leading the country one day? Those in charge should be held to the highest standard, something that is quite clearly morally dubious (especially for someone as wealthy and powerful as Cameron was before becoming PM) should result in some sort of punitive action.

Leaders should be an example, there is a huge difference in the average Joe dodging tax and David Cameron. You're right, the loophole shouldn't exist and technically it's legal, but anytime the words "offshore account" or "tax haven" are mentioned, we know what's going on. I don't know how he can be taken seriously after ranting about the very same thing he and his family were guilty of exploiting.

True it is a stupid move for any politician, still not illegal though. My point was more in general that I'm not gonna start slagging all these people off when I'd do similar. And I dare say if we gave everyone in the country an anonymous vote on whether they pay tax or not (legally) many would choose to not pay it, regardless of what they're earning. I'm not sure how you can punish someone fo doing something that's legal.

Of course we know what's going on, no one pretends otherwise. I thought the Tories ranted about tax evasion as opposed to avoidance? Could be wrong, just going off what I'm seeing on fb atm.

 

[Renegade]

Seems to be a fine line between the two.

 

[blade1889]

A fine line and a big difference, they should be one and the same though

 

[Tilbury]

True it is a stupid move for any politician, still not illegal though. My point was more in general that I'm not gonna start slagging all these people off when I'd do similar. And I dare say if we gave everyone in the country an anonymous vote on whether they pay tax or not (legally) many would choose to not pay it, regardless of what they're earning. I'm not sure how you can punish someone fo doing something that's legal.

Of course we know what's going on, no one pretends otherwise. I thought the Tories ranted about tax evasion as opposed to avoidance? Could be wrong, just going off what I'm seeing on fb atm.

Do you want to see a breakdown of society? Who and how are we going to pay for schools, hospitals, policing etc. Tax is an absolute necessity, and allowing (rich) people to circumvent the system makes a mockery of it.
Time to go Dave.

 

[sl1k]

Do you want to see a breakdown of society? Who and how are we going to pay for schools, hospitals, policing etc. Tax is an absolute necessity, and allowing (rich) people to circumvent the system makes a mockery of it.
Time to go Dave.

This. It's bad enough that the tax system is deliberately designed to help the rich get away with not paying their share to society. But for elected officials, prime minister of the country no less, who's party go pursue aggressive policies of austerity hitting the most vulnerable in society hardest after their bankster mates fucked the economy, to 'play' the system and rob the public purse for millions is a fucking farce.

 

[.V.]

It doesn't look good when thousands of people rely on food banks, and he says we're all in it together.

 

[Habbinalan]

 

[silkyman]

I bet he wishes this had broken a few months ago when his bosses in the press would have swept it under the carpet for him.

In reality, his silly obfuscation the other day aside, this isn't that big a story and is only being trumpeted from the eaves to damage the leader of the 'bremain' campaign.

 

[silkyman]

This stuff probably doesn't help, mind...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-cameron

 

[blade1889]

Do you want to see a breakdown of society? Who and how are we going to pay for schools, hospitals, policing etc. Tax is an absolute necessity, and allowing (rich) people to circumvent the system makes a mockery of it.
Time to go Dave.

I don't need to see a breakdown and I'm not even saying tax should just stop. Just give people an option to pay/not-pay and its natural people take the not-paying option. I'd be astounded if everyone got a choice today that the 'not-paying' people were in a minority. The option should be taken away and successive Tory and Labour governments have failed to do so.

 

[Red]

I just don't understand these super rich people who avoid tax, their greed is just quite remarkable when you think that paying taxes would do nothing to diminish their ability to live the life they want to live. It seems to me that their raison d' etre is to accumulate more and more wealth...unnecessarily. Maybe it's their attitude that because they don't have to rely on public services they shouldn't have to pay taxes. No civic duty, no belief in collective security. In short - selfish c*** who are happy to make millions off the backs of their workers who will never themsleves be in a position to elect to pay taxes.



Agree with you about paying tax being mandatory though and how successive governments have flinched.

 

[blade1889]

I just don't understand these super rich people who avoid tax, their greed is just quite remarkable when you think that paying taxes would do nothing to diminish their ability to live the life they want to live. It seems to me that their raison d' etre is to accumulate more and more wealth...unnecessarily. Maybe it's their attitude that because they don't use public services they shouldn't have to pay taxes. No civic duty, no belief in collective security.



Agree with you about paying tax being mandatory though and how successive governments have flinched.

I think if I was one of these mega-rich people I'd try and justify avoiding tax by arguing that I still pay more than the average person and also when I spend the extra money theres tax on it...somebody else gets payed more from my sale, spends more with tax...somebody else gets more, spends more etc. (I know that's fag packet economics but is something I've heard and can kinda see the logic to a degree). Next would be I (more than likely) have enough money anyway and don't even spend what I avoid in tax's, instead I invest it and when I die I choose which charities to donate it too...so I could argue I'm doing better as the investments have (hopefully) grown and I'm deciding what causes my money helps. If I weren't in the UK, paying tax and avoiding some maybe I'd move abroad like the Blades chairman has and then the UK get nothing?

I do think people recognise taxes are important just not that their little bit of tax necessarily is so them legally choosing to not pay tax doesn't damage society but has a huge impact on them. It wouldn't be a referendum on whether everyone should pay tax or not, rather just one person getting the choice.

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

'bremain'

 

[Techno Natch]

I think if I was one of these mega-rich people I'd try and justify avoiding tax by arguing that I still pay more than the average person and also when I spend the extra money theres tax on it...somebody else gets payed more from my sale, spends more with tax...somebody else gets more, spends more etc. (I know that's fag packet economics but is something I've heard and can kinda see the logic to a degree). Next would be I (more than likely) have enough money anyway and don't even spend what I avoid in tax's, instead I invest it and when I die I choose which charities to donate it too...so I could argue I'm doing better as the investments have (hopefully) grown and I'm deciding what causes my money helps. If I weren't in the UK, paying tax and avoiding some maybe I'd move abroad like the Blades chairman has and then the UK get nothing?

I do think people recognise taxes are important just not that their little bit of tax necessarily is so them legally choosing to not pay tax doesn't damage society but has a huge impact on them. It wouldn't be a referendum on whether everyone should pay tax or not, rather just one person getting the choice.

Except if all these avoiders paid their taxes then we would have more for the NHS and more for people who desperately need help like the disabled.

I don't agree that it's natural for people to not want to pay tax. It's very short sighted and selfish.

They won't close the loopholes though as far to many of the people at the top benefit from it.

 

[Pyeman]

I do think people recognise taxes are important just not that their little bit of tax necessarily is so them legally choosing to not pay tax doesn't damage society but has a huge impact on them. It wouldn't be a referendum on whether everyone should pay tax or not, rather just one person getting the choice.

Im fairly certain you said something similar earlier in the thread and I think this is a big part of the problem.

Viewing tax avoidance/evasion at a very general level might reveal that collectively it costs the country X amount of billions each year, but that's not how people view it.

Wealthy individuals will see it from a much more personal view, whereby them dodging a bit of tax might deprive the country of a couple of hundred thousand. Whilst still a lot of money, in terms of our economy it's loose change, so people don't see it as being a massive problem. In fact, the money will most likely mean more to them as individuals than it does to our overall economy, so to an extent they may feel justified in their decision to not pay tax.

It's only when you consider everyone with this same logic that the problem increases significantly.

 

[blade1889]

Except if all these avoiders paid their taxes then we would have more for the NHS and more for people who desperately need help like the disabled.

I don't agree that it's natural for people to not want to pay tax. It's very short sighted and selfish.

They won't close the loopholes though as far to many of the people at the top benefit from it.

Of course, people pay more tax the government gets more to spend on the NHS. I dont disagree. I could argue though that my investments and future donations to a charity that could be from the environment to a disability charity would benefit them more. I could also argue that the trickle down effect if I were to spend more money helps fewer people but to a larger degree.

I completely think its a natural response and i'd argue that to an extent its even an evolutionary trait.

I dont doubt it, would be interesting to see how far even Corbyn could get with closing loopholes. And, I guess, as I briefly mentioned above you'll just get even more people moving abroad to tax havens as opposed to just their money, and if that happens we'd possibly collect even less in tax.

 

[Techno Natch]

Unfortunately that would mean your money only goes towards helping people involved with that charity. It's a flawed argument because there were so many more people the could have benefited from that money including some of the less glamorous disabilities that don't get as much attention.

Of course if your rich enough you could just pay your tax AND give money to charity.v

 

[blade1889]

Im fairly certain you said something similar earlier in the thread and I think this is a big part of the problem.

Viewing tax avoidance/evasion at a very general level might reveal that collectively it costs the country X amount of billions each year, but that's not how people view it.

Wealthy individuals will see it from a much more personal view, whereby them dodging a bit of tax might deprive the country of a couple of hundred thousand. Whilst still a lot of money, in terms of our economy it's loose change, so people don't see it as being a massive problem. In fact, the money will most likely mean more to them as individuals than it does to our overall economy, so to an extent they may feel justified in their decision to not pay tax.

It's only when you consider everyone with this same logic that the problem increases significantly.

Absolutely! And worded better than me

And its why I think if we took it as a referendum on paying tax the majority would vote to pay, on an individual level though I dont think the majority would. And also why I dont blame individuals for thinking that way, its very easy to get into that mindset which is why I place emphasis on governments doing wrong in allowing it, not individuals themselves...how you stop it effectively, as mentioned above I'm not hugely sure.

 

[blade1889]

Unfortunately that would mean your money only goes towards helping people involved with that charity. It's a flawed argument because there were so many more people the could have benefited from that money including some of the less glamorous disabilities that don't get as much attention.

Of course if your rich enough you could just pay your tax AND give money to charity.v

Its weighing up benefitting fewer people greater or benefitting more to marginable levels. If I had £1m to give away id rather give 100k to 10 people than £1 to 1m. Or I'd even view keeping 500k for myself and giving 10 people 50k as having the clearer benefit than giving 1m £1 each.

To try and get a bit away from the charity aspect with similar logic (cos I feel I'm trying to argue people are doing this to donate to charities which I dont on the whole). I could perceivably convince myself that not paying tax (and the £1 here and there the government would have to cut) as a non-issue if I spend that money and help peoples livelihoods and 'local economies' who then have more to spend themselves and help out more people etc. etc. with the money still being taxed at each level and (in theory although I highly doubt in practice) the governments eventually getting the same amount of tax revenue just through different sources.

Of course, you could still view it the same as above though.

 

[Pyeman]

Absolutely! And worded better than me

And its why I think if we took it as a referendum on paying tax the majority would vote to pay, on an individual level though I dont think the majority would. And also why I dont blame individuals for thinking that way, its very easy to get into that mindset which is why I place emphasis on governments doing wrong in allowing it, not individuals themselves...how you stop it effectively, as mentioned above I'm not hugely sure.

That's the million dollar question isn't it. Do you close all tax loopholes and risk many wealthy tax payers buggering off to pastures new, or do you allow them to continue exploiting these loop holes so that you at least get some tax from them, even if it's not as much as they technically owe.

An idealist would no doubt argue it's a matter of principle and people shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. A pragmatist might well argue that it's very dangerous to base policy on ideals rather than reality. If we close these tax loopholes, would we just be cutting our noses off to spite our faces?

 

[blade1889]

That's the million dollar question isn't it. Do you close all tax loopholes and risk many wealthy tax payers buggering off to pastures new, or do you allow them to continue exploiting these loop holes so that you at least get some tax from them, even if it's not as much as they technically owe.

An idealist would no doubt argue it's a matter of principle and people shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. A pragmatist might well argue that it's very dangerous to base policy on ideals rather than reality. If we close these tax loopholes, would we just be cutting our noses off to spite our faces?

You could, conceivably, argue that if you actually cut tax rates on the top earners they'll feel less inclined to avoid tax. I cant find the link now but an independent company recently calculated that the top rate of tax should be 40% to actually get more from the richest.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/0...iversary-of-nigel-lawsons-tax-cutting-budget/

If I were in power I'd potentially look at doing both in the hope that cutting higher rate tax would be enough to stop people leaving the country by closing loopholes.

 

[Pyeman]

You could, conceivably, argue that if you actually cut tax rates on the top earners they'll feel less inclined to avoid tax. I cant find the link now but an independent company recently calculated that the top rate of tax should be 40% to actually get more from the richest.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/0...iversary-of-nigel-lawsons-tax-cutting-budget/

If I were in power I'd potentially look at doing both in the hope that cutting higher rate tax would be enough to stop people leaving the country by closing loopholes.

The problem is that I think that's a really hard sell to the general masses.

"We're cutting the top rate of tax whilst also cutting back public spending, but trust us, it's going to benefit us all in the long run."

Even if there is a sound economic argument for it, I doubt the public would swallow that lightly. As was shown by the outrage at Osborne's recent budget. In my previous post I spoke about being wary of prioritising principle over reality. If we were to cut the top rate of tax, I'd worry we've gone too far the other way, prioritising pure economic reality by straying too far from a just, fair and principled policy.

This is also a very good demonstration of why I'd be a terrible politician. Forever straddling the fence.

 

[.V.]

Except if all these avoiders paid their taxes then we would have more for the NHS and more for people who desperately need help like the disabled.

I don't agree that it's natural for people to not want to pay tax. It's very short sighted and selfish.

They won't close the loopholes though as far to many of the people at the top benefit from it.

And the rest of us ordinary people would pay less tax too.

 

[The Fack]

"In terms of my own financial affairs, I own no shares. I have a salary as Prime Minister and I have some savings, which I get some interest from, and I have a house, which we used to live in, which we now let out while we are living in Downing Street, and that’s all I have."

You are David Cameron, not Joe Bloggs.

 

[.V.]

"In terms of my own financial affairs, I own no shares. I have a salary as Prime Minister and I have some savings, which I get some interest from, and I have a house, which we used to live in, which we now let out while we are living in Downing Street, and that’s all I have."

You are David Cameron, not Joe Bloggs.

And Mrs Cameron?

 

[smat]

The SNP are demanding that George Osborne releases info about his tax returns following Cameron's disclosures.

Probs nothing to worry about.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i wish i was rich and u was tax so i could avoid u, mate

 

[Dave-Vale]

Sick of the 'it's not illegal so he's done nothing wrong' and the 'the rich pay more tax as a whole because they buy expensive things and pay more tax anyway' lines.

At the end of the day, a man who is in charge of a government who are currently waging a fucking disgraceful, 'financially' driven war on the sick, the poor and the NHS has connections (and has profited) from a tax loophole which has essentially pillaged money directly from the UK into his bank account.

If/when more names start to leak out I can guarantee that there will be other Tory bastards on there, the same scumbags who voted to take tax credits away from WORKING families (like my own!) and the same heartless vermin who voted to take £30 a week off people who struggle to dress, feed and wash themselves.

On another note: is anybody else as pissed off as me at the fact Samantha Cameron (a woman who comes from an extremely wealthy family) pays an advisor £50k (double the national average wage) to pick her clothes? Even more annoying that this money is coming from the taxpayer. I'm a bit more pissed off about this than I am about any 'benefit scrounger'!

Change is coming. The 99% are waking up and realising that we are being totally fucked over by this regime.

A few thousand people protested outside Downing Street yesterday but not 1 bit of coverage from the BBC. That says it all.

 

[Benji]

"In terms of my own financial affairs, I own no shares. I have a salary as Prime Minister and I have some savings, which I get some interest from, and I have a house, which we used to live in, which we now let out while we are living in Downing Street, and that’s all I have."

You are David Cameron, not Joe Bloggs.

The savings were simply magicked into his account. All legal, no doubt.

 

[Red]

That's the million dollar question isn't it. Do you close all tax loopholes and risk many wealthy tax payers buggering off to pastures new, or do you allow them to continue exploiting these loop holes so that you at least get some tax from them, even if it's not as much as they technically owe.

An idealist would no doubt argue it's a matter of principle and people shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. A pragmatist might well argue that it's very dangerous to base policy on ideals rather than reality. If we close these tax loopholes, would we just be cutting our noses off to spite our faces?

Would they though? Vodafone were among the companies that had been exposed for avoiding tax. They're not going to up sticks and leave if they're brought to heel because the markets they operate in here are profitable, even after paying their tax properly.