HSBC scandal.

Westyfield2 said:
There is another option :).
Click to expand...

Which is fine if you have the time to redesign the way public services are delivered or you can accept that some things simply don't get done (and you can deal with the subsequent issues from that) or you have the resources banked to allow you to adjust for expenditure potentially reducing more slowly than the tax take does.

However while we're running a deficit it's not quite that simple - the income from tax has to be used to offset against current expenditure, this means you don't have the luxury of using a surplus to manage a reduction in public expenditure smoothly as some of it is committed for a set period and you can't just turn it on or off as you might wish. In which case you're back to borrowing to cover the shortfall (or getting the money due from tax evaders which isn't always easy either).

Also I've got some issues with our public spending being dictated by tax evaders, it's one thing to structure your tax liabilities in a way that limits your tax burden legitimately, it's another for the country to be effectively forced to adjust what it can or cannot provide for its citizens by some people illegally hiding their wealth. So if people are going to cheer for tax evaders then let's be sure that's actually what they mean to do.
 
it is a criminal act so lets deal with it like any other criminal act and take the money off them including any and all profits made we already have systems in place that allow for this
why should they be allowed to pay back a small portion with the garantee of no prosecution how is that going to deter anyone from doing the same ?
 
america will at least surely make the bank pay like they did in 2012.
HSBC was made to pay a $1.9bn fine in 2012, in a deferred prosecution agreement over money-laundering with Mexican drug cartels and breaches of US sanctions.
Click to expand...
 
[TW]Fox;27609422 said:
Rubbish, you just don't hear about it as much. Never wondered why the guy in front of you at the supermarket pays in cash for a hundred quid worth of groceries?
Click to expand...

That's normal for us (to pay that amount in cash for the weekly shop), Am I missing a trick ?
 
Lord Fink has written a letter to Milliband:

Dear Mr. Miliband,

Today at Prime Minister’s Questions, you alleged that I had undertaken ‘tax avoidance activities’ in Switzerland:
‘Let’s take Stanley Fink who gave £3 million to the Conservative Party. He actually appointed him as Treasurer of the Tory Party and gave him a peerage for good measure. So now can he explain what steps he is going to take to find out about the tax avoidance activities of Lord Fink?’

This allegation is untrue and defamatory.

These are the facts:

  • I was posted by the Man Group to run their office in Switzerland for four years from 1996 until 2000.
  • During this time I had need of a local bank account to do simple things like receive my Swiss Franc salary and pay grocery bills.
  • As I already banked with HSBC in London, I set up an account with HSBC. I subsequently set up an account with Credit Suisse as they had a branch much closer to my home and office.
  • I submitted tax returns in both Switzerland and Britain showing my revised tax status, which was accepted by the Inland Revenue.

I find it extraordinary that you have made claims against me that are without foundation or without contacting me.

I challenge you to repeat your allegation outside the House of Commons – or to withdraw it publically.

Yours sincerely,
Lord Fink of Northwood​


So, will Milliband repeat the allegation without parliamentary privilege?
 
Lartyconshayo said:
meanwhile this is what you get for allegedly, that's allegedly mind, committing benefit fraud. A dozen police officers AND riot officers.

Unbelievable

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/...arly-morning/story-26002712-detail/story.html
Click to expand...

Heavy handed for sure but one is stealing money from the state which they arent entitled to, the other is legally reducing their tax liability and paying what is due.

To link the two as if remotely similar is utterly moronic.

Edit: The reply was more directed to Uther
 
Uther said:
We shall have to agree to disagree. ;)
Click to expand...

You agree to disagree over matters of opinion. Not matters of fact.

Benefit fraud is illegal, tax avoidance is not, the two are not comparable. Tax evasion is comparable to benefit fraud as both involve breaking the law.
 
Dolph said:
You agree to disagree over matters of opinion. Not matters of fact.

Benefit fraud is illegal, tax avoidance is not, the two are not comparable. Tax evasion is comparable to benefit fraud as both involve breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't tax avoidance be frowned upon? I can kind of see his point. You have very rich people reducing what they contribute to society despite being in a better position to do so. It may be entirely legal, but is it moral?
 
Bear said:
Heavy handed for sure but one is stealing money from the state which they arent entitled to, the other is legally reducing their tax liability and paying what is due.

To link the two as if remotely similar is utterly moronic.

Edit: The reply was more directed to Uther
Click to expand...

If you think what HSBC were doing for their clients was 'legal' you need to read up on this again.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/201...ps-hearing-of-hsbc-tax-evasion-claims-in-2011

*notice the headline says tax EVASION (which is illegal) and not avoidance (which is legal but very often just as dishonest).

But anyway, even if what they were doing was legal, I would still argue that poor people making a couple of extra hundred quid a month dishonestly is less immoral than the super rich (who simply want but don't need more money) getting to keep hundreds of thousands through 'clever accounting' (but just as disingenuous as the former).
 
Last edited:
Bear said:
the other is legally reducing their tax liability and paying what is due.

To link the two as if remotely similar is utterly moronic.

Edit: The reply was more directed to Uther
Click to expand...

Tax Evasion = ILLEGAL

You may want to read up the difference between avoidance and evasion together why with this HSBC incident is a international scandal.
 
Dolph said:
You agree to disagree over matters of opinion. Not matters of fact.

Benefit fraud is illegal, tax avoidance is not, the two are not comparable. Tax evasion is comparable to benefit fraud as both involve breaking the law.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing laws can change then isn't it.

Many loopholes are legal as a matter of technicality & go against the intended spirit of the law. Ethically & morally they are comparable as they both have the same end result for society.

Besides, in the case of this as mentioned earlier this is stated as tax evasion (also on the BBC website)

"Firstly, that he offered information in 2010 to UK authorities that HSBC was involved in aiding and abetting tax evasion for its clients."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31433674
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom