Panama Papers

[Tunney]

So characterising it as an offshore avoidance scheme is just you being disingenuous so you can still try and tarnish him. Okay.

Nope, I never said that Blairmore was an offshore tax avoidance scheme. You're putting words in my mouth.

I said that he's benefited from offshore tax avoidance in the past.

 

[Danthus]

So characterising it as an offshore avoidance scheme is just you being disingenuous so you can still try and tarnish him. Okay.

But it was setup in a manner in order to avoid paying tax in then UK, that is in the Balirmore prospectus, it isn't people making it up.

 

[Danthus]

That wasn't about tax avoidance, though. It's so people don't have to worry about double taxation and the complications that brings, so they could serve an international client base.

So instead of pay tax twice, they paid tax once thus avoiding paying more tax.

 

[gjrc]

But it was setup in a manner in order to avoid paying tax in then UK, that is in the Balirmore prospectus, it isn't people making it up.

yes but any UK investors pay tax at their nominal rate on any income they receive from it. its a very typical structure.

this seems to be an attack on Cameron by the anti EU press. discredit him to push people to vote for out.

The Observer has largely been in support of Cameron over this and, guess what, they are a pro Europe paper.

as for the Cameron inheritance from his mother that is just disgraceful media garbage.

 

[FuriousGeorge]

That's what I think, I've been in business and have been involved in the family business for over 40 years and I begrudge every single penny I pay in tax. I will take any step that reduces my liabilty £0.00 if I could.

Your company never has call to use roads, fire brigade, the police, and you or your employees have never been the the doctors or hospital I suppose.

I suppose you didnt use state education either, and were born in a private hospital as well?

I bet you begrudge having to pay your staff the minimum wage too?

 

[Dolph]

Have you ever used the NHS?

Has Corbyn?

The problem is the left likes to paint tax as some sort of ethical or moral issue, but ignore the practicality of such a position.

Is it sufficient to satisfy the moral imperative around tax to simply have a deduction applied, or should the ethical choice be to actually raise money for the state though paying a share of the proceeds from productivity?

Is ethics enough or should ethics actually be practical too?

 

[Danthus]

Has Corbyn?

Yeah he probably has, just you both you and I, what is your point?

 

[Semple]

Ethical issues shouldn't even come into play.

If the loopholes are closed then it's irrelevant whether it is morally right or wrong, it then becomes a case of whether it is illegal or not.

If a path exists to avoid taxes then of course people are going to take it.

 

[Danthus]

Ethical issues shouldn't even come into play.

If the loopholes are closed then it's irrelevant whether it is morally right or wrong, it then becomes a case of whether it is illegal or not.

If a path exists to avoid taxes then of course people are going to take it.

The problem is not all of us have access to those paths.

It is a system stacked in favour of a few.

 

[Hambut_Bulge]

"off shore accounts is nothing more than legalized tax fraud" -Bernie Sanders

To which one could retort that tax itself is nothing more than legalised theft!

It was after all John Locke who wrote that "[government] can never have a power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the subjects’ property, without their consent. Or this would be in effect to leave them no property at all.” Perhaps Bernie Sanders ought to remember the circumstances of his own nation's birth before getting climbing on the moral bandwagon

Billions in tax revenue that would mean "austerity" was not needed.

Leaving aside the UK definition of "austerity", the deficit for 2015/16 is something like £69 billion, whereas the amount 'lost' annually by HMRC through the use of off-shore facilities amounts to around £2.5 billion. It wouldn't even start to close the gap.

 

[Tunney]

It was after all John Locke who wrote that "[government] can never have a power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the subjects’ property, without their consent. Or this would be in effect to leave them no property at all.” Perhaps Bernie Sanders ought to remember the circumstances of his own nation's birth before getting climbing on the moral bandwagon

John Locke was born around 500 years ago. The world today is a very different place to the one in which John Locke lived. America already has enough problems with people taking outmoded teachings too literally, don't you think?

 

[Danthus]

Leaving aside the UK definition of "austerity", the deficit for 2015/16 is something like £69 billion, whereas the amount 'lost' annually by HMRC through the use of off-shore facilities amounts to around £2.5 billion. It wouldn't even start to close the gap.

We don't know how much has been avoided precisely becasue of the tax arrangements that the leaking of these documents has exposed.

 

[chroniclard]

So after all this fuss Cameron hasn't actually done anything wrong?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

The problem is not all of us have access to those paths.

It is a system stacked in favour of a few.

Thats plain wrong.

We all have just the same access should we wish to pursue it.

What most people don't have is the ability to benefit from it as the costs would exceed the gain.

You may say its the same thing but its not. There are many things you can't have as you can't afford them, doesn't mean that you don't have access to these paths.

 

[Hambut_Bulge]

John Locke was born around 500 years ago. The world today is a very different place to the one in which John Locke lived. America already has enough problems with people taking outmoded teachings too literally, don't you think?

Ok, let's scrap the whole idea of "government with the consent of the governed" then! Its just an outmoded concept dreamt up by some old dude half millennia ago...

 

[Danthus]

Thats plain wrong.

We all have just the same access should we wish to pursue it.

What most people don't have is the ability to benefit from it as the costs would exceed the gain.

You may say its the same thing but its not. There are many things you can't have as you can't afford them, doesn't mean that you don't have access to these paths.

How does someone who is PAYE take advantage of a Cayman Islands tax heaven?

 

[Pudney]

How does someone who is PAYE take advantage of a Cayman Islands tax heaven?

Set up a Cayman company and invest in UK stocks and shares through it.

 

[do_ron_ron]

What?

This is Dolph's far right looney view that all civil servants are parasites taking money from people who work in private companies.

 

[Hambut_Bulge]

We don't know how much has been avoided precisely becasue of the tax arrangements that the leaking of these documents has exposed.

The figure was taken from this article. I am trying to find a good cross-reference to confirm it

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

How does someone who is PAYE take advantage of a Cayman Islands tax heaven?

You invest there.

So you think everyone who isn't PAYE is tax dodging?

I get that you don't get it but everyone in the UK follows the same tax regime, being PAYE doesn't mean you find it harder to avoid or evade tax. Its a benefit in fact since you dont have to spend money completing returns that eg a self employed person is likely to incur.

If your talking about someone super rich then their income isn't from PAYE typically its almost certainly from other income which wouldn't be under PAYE anyway even if they were employed.