Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
But as a resident of the UK, you would have to declare gains from such an investment on your tax return, would you not?
Panama Papers
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
This is a ridiculous argument.
If drinking water was £1m a litre, would you argue that everybody had access to drinking water? I mean, you have the same access should you wish to pursue it... as long as you had £1m.
Depends how you extract the funds.
Note: I'm not going to give a step by step guide in this thread how to avoid UK taxes.
Wouldn't that fall within the Permanent Establishment rules if you do all of the investments from the UK?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,436
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Its also quite odd that someone earning that amount has no other taxable income to declare. I call non declaration
I mean not even any interest on current accounts or savings?
Though hes true labour so hes probably spending more than hes earning
Depends how you set up the management of the board, investment services etc.
When you 'imported' the gain, yes, the same as DC.
How does someone earning the NMW do that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,436
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Yes, because technically you would.
But its a bad example you quote picking a necessity of life and putting a quite ludicrous value on it.
Sorry but the points stand, there is nothing stopping you doing the same.
There is even probably no minimum amount you could offshore, so take £1 and move it to the Cayman islands and keep it there earning money away from UK taxation. The route is open to you. It may cost you a little more than £1 to move it, and in fees to look after your £1, but should you wish I bet you could. Now add ,000,000,000 to the end of the £1 and you can see why its probably worth doing for them but not you.
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to work out its not an especially good plan for the person with £1 but that for the other guy it makes more sense
I doubt the amount of money lost through offshore as being £2.5bn... That number is preposterously low. Do we really think of the 200-300,000 shell companies were only dodging paying £10k each? Or do we believe the almost conclusive factor that these companies were dodging hundreds of thousands and many potentially millions in unpaid and "aggressive tax avoidance" schemes? I know what my money would be on.
And to keep the points of truth going: This is just one company in one tax haven. If we were to take just 1% of wealth from the wealthiest 1% (individuals and corporations) every problem in the UK would be gone.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 460
- Location
- Wirral
Ooh look. John McDonnell's got a pension in an offshore fund. He must be doing something wrong! What else is he hiding?
Except, of course, we won't hear the baying mob crying for his blood.
RaohNH, as I replied to OldCoals above, the figures are from this telegraph article. I cannot, at the moment, comment on their veracity, but have to assume the journalist has done his/her research
Except, of course, we won't hear the baying mob crying for his blood.
RaohNH, as I replied to OldCoals above, the figures are from this telegraph article. I cannot, at the moment, comment on their veracity, but have to assume the journalist has done his/her research
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,436
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Jeez do you not get it...
Its open to you but not cost effective.
Its not saying you can't do it but that you shouldn't
Take person A, earning NMW but who has just been left £1,000,000 but a long lost aunt.
Earning NMW has nothing to do with them having the ABILITY to offshore the £1,000,000.
The assumption is that someone earning NMW does not have the assets in place to benefit from offshoring, but if they did, they could, and they would benefit just the same as a multi billionaire doing the same.
Live at home with parents, pay no rent and put savings offshore.
But your everyday worker pays tax at source, they can't have a clever set of instruments in place before they receive their pay.
OldCoals said:
Asked and answered.
Not easily, but you have gone from PAYE which covers a proportion of high to middle earners who could invest in an offshore investment fund to lower earners who could not without a lottery win or similar.
Is your view that if no-one earning above NMW should be able to use investment companies or trusts because those on NMW are not able to?
Many investors use monies on which for example income tax has been paid but then buy international shares and place in funds offshore. When the returns are brought back into the country then tax is due.
The same with a savings account, you open with money paid after tax but you are still liable for tax on the interest.
Last edited:
No but if you move money from your bank, thats OK. the fund could be run by another, it may not be solely yours.
Lodge a £1000 with paypal then when the exchange rate is more favourable download it. A simple analogy. Do you tell the taxman?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,598
Except of course that his pension from his Council job is managed by a Pensions Committee. He did not set it up nor does he have any influence on its running. Sad, sad attempt to divert attention.
Yes, because technically you would.
But its a bad example you quote picking a necessity of life and putting a quite ludicrous value on it.
Sorry but the points stand, there is nothing stopping you doing the same.
There is even probably no minimum amount you could offshore, so take £1 and move it to the Cayman islands and keep it there earning money away from UK taxation. The route is open to you. It may cost you a little more than £1 to move it, and in fees to look after your £1, but should you wish I bet you could. Now add ,000,000,000 to the end of the £1 and you can see why its probably worth doing for them but not you.
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to work out its not an especially good plan for the person with £1 but that for the other guy it makes more sense
This is a nonsense definition of access, by this metric, everybody has "access" to all things at all times. Given enough money, I could "access" the crown jewels of Holland since I could hire a private army to take it and pay all the other countries not to intervene.
We can abolish all doctors and schools tomorrow since those things exist somewhere in the world and therefore people have "access" to them.
Also, if the point is that this is legal and therefore everything is fine. Then if the politicians write a law that says the state can set fire to your home, then you'd all be on board with that as well, right? It'd be legal.
EDIT:
Further along this theme.
If this is the definition of "access", then if I say, "I can't fly a plane"? Am I wrong? I mean, I can theoretically be holding the controls whilst a plane is in the air. Which other nonsense definitions of other words would you have? If I can fit through a gap with both my arms lopped off, then should I say, "Yes, I can fit in there."?
Last edited: