Tax Avoidance: Are they all at it ?

[realBabelfish]

Absolutely, the hypocrisy and double standards among the wet liberal-left is breath-taking. Someone pass the bloody sponge

not really.

if a lower paid person pays cash they pay less. the money saved will 99% go straight back into the economy.

when the super rich offshore all their cash to the cayman islands the country loses out, massively.

the 2 result in very different situations.

 

[Housey]

I'd disagree. From my own observations, the people who tend to think like you and I seem to be more intellectual, who understand that there's a debate to be had about issues that aren't black and white such as morality and human nature rather than using simplistic arguments like "tax evasion = illegal; tax avoidance = fine" or "why would you pay more tax than you were legally required to?".

Not more intellectual I'd suggest, that's simply self elevation without basis a trait common in people who believe they are always right, but simply different perspectives. I support the view that experience provides better grounding in life, certainly more so than intellect alone, but genuine intellect provides a mechanism to see more than one argument, not simply dismiss the opposing view as many self proclaimed intellectuals do. Your point about black and white I agree with, I made it several posts above.

 

[Skull]

not really.

if a lower paid person pays cash they pay less. the money saved will 99% go straight back into the economy.

when the super rich offshore all their cash to the cayman islands the country loses out, massively.

the 2 result in very different situations.

So, going along that line of thinking, is buying alcohol/cigarettes that hasn't had the duty paid (which saves people money that will 99% go back into the economy), therefore ok?

In any event, if the super rich store money overseas, it is not frozen in a vault. First, the bank will invest it and some of that investment will be in the UK. Second, the tax advantages mean the rich people have more money to spend in the UK...therefore the money goes back into the economy...

 

[estebanrey]

not really.

if a lower paid person pays cash they pay less. the money saved will 99% go straight back into the economy.

when the super rich offshore all their cash to the cayman islands the country loses out, massively.

the 2 result in very different situations.

The Cayman Island thing is more of a temporary stop before it comes back here into their bank accounts, that was the case with Jimmy Carr anyway.

They don't just leave it there to rot. And how can you say 99% of money saved from dodgy tradesmen deals goes back into the economy, people are just as likely to put in to their saving accounts or banks as a rich man.

 

[elmarko]

Not more intellectual I'd suggest, that's simply self elevation without basis a trait common in people who believe they are always right, but simply different perspectives. I support the view that experience provides better grounding in life, certainly more so than intellect alone, but genuine intellect provides a mechanism to see more than one argument, not simply dismiss the opposing view as many self proclaimed intellectuals do. Your point about black and white I agree with, I made it several posts above.

I agree (in part)

It depends entirely on perspective.

If you deem the purpose of society to be something different to me - then right & wrong don't enter the equation.

If person A doesn't care if a percentage of the population live in squallier then what views they have on social care are "right" according to a matter of perspective.

But on some cases personal opinion isn't valid, those in favour of harsh punishments for crimes (for example) who want a reduction in the crime rate are objectively wrong & should be ignored.

What I don't like is people pretending to care about the average worker, when in reality they don't give a hoot.

 

[kinobestew123]

I do find it funny that (according to these forums) you are either a hard-working, wealthy job creator and are fully entitled to take advantage of any scheme that will reduce your contribution to society OR you're a work shy benefits scrounger who should have access to any government support stripped from you for being so useless at the game of life.

I find that in my head I can easily classify everybody I meet into "useful" or "useless". I know it's very prejudice and I shouldn't do it but I can't help it.

Also, it's fact that some people will contribute more to society than they use and some will use more than they contribute. You're either one or the other.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

I do find it funny that (according to these forums) you are either a hard-working, wealthy job creator and are fully entitled to take advantage of any scheme that will reduce your contribution to society OR you're a work shy benefits scrounger who should have access to any government support stripped from you for being so useless at the game of life.

Those of us who are in the middle ground don't feel the need to voice our opinion of (and generally just stay out of) such ridiculous discussions as declaring one extreme or the other.

 

[elmarko]

Not more intellectual I'd suggest, that's simply self elevation without basis a trait common in people who believe they are always right, but simply different perspectives. I support the view that experience provides better grounding in life, certainly more so than intellect alone, but genuine intellect provides a mechanism to see more than one argument, not simply dismiss the opposing view as many self proclaimed intellectuals do. Your point about black and white I agree with, I made it several posts above.

I agree (in part)

It depends entirely on perspective.

If you deem the purpose of society to be something different to me - then right & wrong don't enter the equation.

If person A doesn't care if a percentage of the population live in squallier then what views they have on social care are "right" according to a matter of perspective.

But on some cases personal opinion isn't valid, those in favour of harsh punishments for crimes (for example) who want a reduction in the crime rate are objectively wrong & should be ignored.

Much of conservative ideology is deeply routed in the just world fallacy - which is mostly fundamental attribution error.

They over-value personality based reasons (they are lazy, they are scum) & undervalue environmental or genetic reasons (which objectively they had no choice in) for negative behaviour or traits.

If you just view people as biological organisms which respond negatively or positively pending on stimulus - the entire concept of free-will/personal responsibility becomes incompatible - even more so when you take into account the recent studies in neuroscience (read up on some Sam Harris for further info, a good read)

That's my main reason for rejecting it.

I find that in my head I can easily classify everybody I meet into "useful" or "useless". I know it's very prejudice and I shouldn't do it but I can't help it.

Also, it's fact that some people will contribute more to society than they use and some will use more than they contribute. You're either one or the other.

I only rate jobs which would be required in any social model as useful.

That's doctors, nurses, firemen, police, scientists, carers, cleaners, people who work in goods transportation, manufacturing, public transport etc.

Everybody who's job is intrinsically linked to competition or money (as capitalism is only one model) has a "useless job" - that includes my own.

Besides, "usefulness" can skip generations - I'm sure some of our greatest scientists have had "useless" parents, so it's not that simple - what somebody does may be useless - but it doesn't mean the person is.

 

[estebanrey]

Also, it's fact that some people will contribute more to society than they use and some will use more than they contribute. You're either one or the other.

You are seeing “contributing to society” purely in monetary terms though I suspect, person A pays X in tax and takes Y in benefits and because X is more than Y they are contributing more to society.

What this type of argument forgets is that rich people wouldn’t be rich without that society. Although we like to believe it, no one is rich through their hard work alone, it required the rest of society either working for that person or buying from that person to enable him to be rich.

Take Jimmy Carr, where would he be without the lighting engineers, sound engineers, the cleaners that create a nice environment for his audience, the food sellers at the venues, the people who work in the ticket offices selling his tickets and of course the audience themselves?

There’s no such thing as a self made man in reality.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

They over-value personality based reasons (they are lazy, they are scum) & undervalue environmental or genetic reasons (which objectively they had no choice in) for negative behaviour or traits.

Agreed.
How many in the Conservative cabinet inherited their money or come from extremely wealthy backgrounds? Too many, proportional to the UK population.
God forbid that actually most people work hard but do different jobs, have different luck and live in different circumstances!

What this type of argument forgets is that rich people wouldn’t be rich without that society. Although we like to believe it, no one is rich through their hard work alone, it required the rest of society either working for that person or buying from that person to enable him to be rich.

There’s no such thing as a self made man in reality.

Completely agree. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and to discount the efforts of others and those around us (on a daily basis) is offensive to society and civilisation as a whole.
I have yet to hear of a cave-dwelling hermit tycoon (Apart from Batman).

 

[elmarko]

There’s no such thing as a self made man in reality.

This.

People ignore the millions of advantages they had & the aid they received to get them to where they are.

1. Fortunate enough to be the sperm that made it.
2. Fortunate enough to have made it to birth.
3. Fortunate enough to have not been born in Somalia with aids & actually born in England.
4. Fortunate enough to have been born free of hereditary mental or physical illness.
5. Fortunate enough to have had state support, medical support through childhood, measures put in to ensure they will not go hungry, parents who didn't sexually/physically abuse them, to not have crack addict parents.
6. Fortunate enough to go-to a school which aided them in obtaining a good education, or parents which supported them.
7. Fortunate to have had a social circle which encouraged (or at least didn't discourage) success & self control/motivation.

Some people succeed DESPITE disadvantages & many only succeed BECAUSE of advantages.

Most of the rest of the population act in accordance to the benefits they did - or did not - receive.

Nobody is self made, only a small minded idiot would claim to be.

"No man is an island" - I believe in a suitable quote in this context.

"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."

People like to take credit for things which objectively they had no say in & downplay the advantages they received in at attempt to bolster their self image.

 

[Housey]

I agree (in part)

It depends entirely on perspective.

If you deem the purpose of society to be something different to me - then right & wrong don't enter the equation.

If person A doesn't care if a percentage of the population live in squallier then what views they have on social care are "right" according to a matter of perspective.

But on some cases personal opinion isn't valid, those in favour of harsh punishments for crimes (for example) who want a reduction in the crime rate are objectively wrong & should be ignored.

Much of conservative ideology is deeply routed in the just world fallacy - which is mostly fundamental attribution error.

They over-value personality based reasons (they are lazy, they are scum) & undervalue environmental or genetic reasons (which objectively they had no choice in) for negative behaviour or traits.

If you just view people as biological organisms which respond negatively or positively pending on stimulus - the entire concept of free-will/personal responsibility becomes incompatible - even more so when you take into account the recent studies in neuroscience (read up on some Sam Harris for further info, a good read)

That's my main reason for rejecting it.

I only rate jobs which would be required in any social model as useful.

That's doctors, nurses, firemen, police, scientists, carers, cleaners, people who work in goods transportation, manufacturing, public transport etc.

Everybody who's job is intrinsically linked to competition or money (as capitalism is only one model) has a "useless job" - that includes my own.

Besides, "usefulness" can skip generations - I'm sure some of our greatest scientists have had "useless" parents, so it's not that simple - what somebody does may be useless - but it doesn't mean the person is.

Sadly for your ideals to work, or even the opposing views to work or carry weight it would need common perspectives, ambitions, personalities and values and sadly the human race doesn't work that way. Putting the right/left wing comments to one side, the fact is we have a society full of different people, at the lowest level we have people who simply are bone idle, they don't want to work and they want everything given to them and no matter what their circumstance was when they came into this world they are what they are and nothing you do will change that. We also have people at the top who want to win at all costs, no ethics or values of care for others, they will simply tread on you and demonstrate psychopathic tendancies, some of which prevail on this forum in all camps.

But in between you have shades of grey. To ignore the fact that both are problems is to start off on the road to failing and sadly the reason why no one has ever created the perfect society is because it goes great until you add people to the mix and then it falls down and it always will fall down because values and perspectives will never be the same across the table.

 

[elmarko]

Sadly for your ideals to work, or even the opposing views to work or carry weight it would need common perspectives, ambitions, personalities and values and sadly the human race doesn't work that way. Putting the right/left wing comments to one side, the fact is we have a society full of different people, at the lowest level we have people who simply are bone idle, they don't want to work and they want everything given to them and no matter what their circumstance was when they came into this world they are what they are and nothing you do will change that. We also have people at the top who want to win at all costs, no ethics or values of care for others, they will simply tread on you and demonstrate psychopathic tendancies, some of which prevail on this forum in all camps.

But in between you have shades of grey. To ignore the fact that both are problems is to start off on the road to failing and sadly the reason why no one has ever created the perfect society is because it goes great until you add people to the mix and then it falls down and it always will fall down because values and perspectives will never be the same across the table.

I don't believe we are so set in stone.

We express the values which are rewarded - as long as self interest is rewarded that kind of behaviour should be expected (at the top & the bottom).

I agree that a certain population are lazy scum, but the key point is - I can't blame them for being the product of a bad environment, what else could they be?.

We have quite a number of good theory's pertaining to the underline cause of this kind of negative behaviour (which causes the laziness you so despise) so wouldn't solving it at source be better than simply ending support for them? (which we both know will simply result in increased crime).

As a society, we create these "lazy benefit leeches", they are a by-product of the environment society creates - if we want to stop creating more of them we need to change the environment.

If you look across the globe at different nations you can see different levels of social progression - with the Nordic regions leading the world on almost everything.

They have lower crime, lower mental illness, lower unemployment, less "scum bad chav's" & a higher quality of life.

By pulling the safety net from under the poor we would be moving towards more of an American system - who has higher crime, higher mental illness, loads of unemployment & far more "scum" - effectively creating more of the people so you despise.

This is why psychology, sociology, neurobiology, history, politics & economics are all subjects which an person needs to read up on to have a reasonable base for form a valid political view (in my opinion).

 

[Housey]

This.

People ignore the millions of advantages they had & the aid they received to get them to where they are.

1. Fortunate enough to be the sperm that made it.
2. Fortunate enough to have made it to birth.
3. Fortunate enough to have not been born in Somalia with aids & actually born in England.
4. Fortunate enough to have been born free of hereditary mental or physical illness.
5. Fortunate enough to have had state support, medical support through childhood, measures put in to ensure they will not go hungry, parents who didn't sexually/physically abuse them, to not have crack addict parents.
6. Fortunate enough to go-to a school which aided them in obtaining a good education, or parents which supported them.
7. Fortunate to have had a social circle which encouraged (or at least didn't discourage) success & self control/motivation.

Some people succeed DESPITE disadvantages & many only succeed BECAUSE of advantages.

Most of the rest of the population act in accordance to the benefits they did - or did not - receive.

Nobody is self made, only a small minded idiot would claim to be.

"No man is an island" - I believe in a suitable quote in this context.

"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."

People like to take credit for things which objectively they had no say in & downplay the advantages they received in at attempt to bolster their self image.

Using hyberbole to uphold your point weakens it. I don't think anyone assumes 'self made' is taking it as literal as you want to make it. Of course the fact we are born with certain things others might not have are important to go back to such aspects is somewhat silly as it is to get angry when people make reference to it as the context to anyone sensible is clear. Anything can be broken down into the atoms of the argument and be dismissed but that is pointless. Self made has context to most people so simply changing the context doesn't make you right and them wrong.

Again, shades of grey..

 

[elmarko]

Using hyberbole to uphold your point weakens it. I don't think anyone assumes 'self made' is taking it as literal as you want to make it. Of course the fact we are born with certain things others might not have are important to go back to such aspects is somewhat silly as it is to get angry when people make reference to it as the context to anyone sensible is clear. Anything can be broken down into the atoms of the argument and be dismissed but that is pointless. Self made has context to most people so simply changing the context doesn't make you right and them wrong.

Again, shades of grey..

It's not hyperbole, for a majority of the population of earth it's a fact that they were not fortunate enough to be born in a developed country.

Everything on that list can be taken literally - so hyperbole it is not.

By what context do you mean "self-made" then?, or by what context do you think others are wording it which I'm changing the meaning of?.

I gave an array of examples, starting from birth to country of origin to simply having friends who encourage you - not exactly just extreme things.

Who said it wasn't shades of grey?, I never implied it was a black & white - at least argue against what I'm saying.

 

[Firestar_3x]

I've never seen anyone take 'self made' so literally.

lol.

 

[elmarko]

I've never seen anyone take 'self made' so literally.

lol.

All of those factors on the list play quite strong part in determining what kind of person they will grow up to be.

By what definition are you (or is anybody) self-made?. (this should be amusing).

 

[estebanrey]

I've never seen anyone take 'self made' so literally.

lol.

The initial point has been lost, it's not about the semantics of the term "self made", it's the people who think they give more to society than they take because they are only judging things in purely monetary terms when in fact all rich people rely in vary degrees on that society existing and functioning well to sustain their nice lifestyles and wealth.

Ergo, you can't claim you owe nothing to society because you are self made and have a lot of money and use that as a justification as to why you shouldn't have to pay into society.

 

[Firestar_3x]

All of those factors on the list play quite strong part in determining what kind of person they will grow up to be.

By what definition are you (or is anybody) self-made?. (this should be amusing).

Your upbringing will indeed be reflected in your character and any personality 'traits' you have.

Self made to me simply means you've succeeded in the business world with minimal / no outside help or funding, you’ve worked hard to ratchet your way up the corporate ladder or invested in others using your own gained knowledge, you've gone it alone to succeed and continue to succeed and prosper from your business ventures.

An example off the top of my head would be an entrepreneur.

 

[Stretch]

The initial point has been lost, it's not about the semantics of the term "self made", it's the people who think they give more to society than they take because they are only judging things in purely monetary terms when in fact all rich people rely in vary degrees on that society existing and functioning well to sustain their nice lifestyles and wealth.

Ergo, you can't claim you owe nothing to society because you are self made and have a lot of money and use that as a justification as to why you shouldn't have to pay into society.

Agreed. And even if a person could justify not paying, why should some have that option whilst others don't. Not all "self made" people are exceptionally wealthy.