Panama Papers

[Hambut_Bulge]

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.

No, it illustrates a) the double standards being employed by the morality mob; and b) the sheer impossibility of Labour's stated plan to clear out all offshore tax havens, which, if implemented, would devalue the pension fund of every single person in the country

 

[Pudney]

But your everyday worker pays tax at source, they can't have a clever set of instruments in place before they receive their pay.

Your everyday worker pays tax on their employment income at source. You can use the net employment income to invest in things that would in turn get taxed.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

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.

So whats your point?
Old coals said only some had access, its technically wrong, everyone has access to the same schemes.
They have a barrier to entry, being that unless you have more the £x to invest its utterly illogical to do so. Doesn't change the fact that they are open should you want to use them.
Can you only make arguments with extreme situations? £1M bottle of water, private army... (which of course would be illegal so I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make).

FACT, you could open an offshore investment trust with £1, you could exactly mimic the one David Cameron had invested in should you wish. You wouldn't gain anything from it, in fact it would net you negative returns due to costs but you could do it should you choose to.

 

[drakioned]

So whats your point?
Old coals said only some had access, its technically wrong, everyone has access to the same schemes.
They have a barrier to entry, being that unless you have more the £x to invest its utterly illogical to do so. Doesn't change the fact that they are open should you want to use them.
Can you only make arguments with extreme situations? £1M bottle of water, private army... (which of course would be illegal so I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make).

FACT, you could open an offshore investment trust with £1, you could exactly mimic the one David Cameron had invested in should you wish. You wouldn't gain anything from it, in fact it would net you negative returns due to costs but you could do it should you choose to.

I find the extreme situations are the most illustrative. I don't dispute whether these things are legal or illegal under UK law. They have declared legal by more competent authorities than me, and I'm fine accepting this.

I'm interested in whether these things are right or wrong and whether we should be amending the law. Telling me that certain things are possible is neither here nor there.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

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."?

Your quite a special case aren't you?

So lets look at the dictionary definition of access
"noun
1.
the means or opportunity to approach or enter a place.
"the staircase gives access to the top floor"

So to fit our specific example we would need to replace approach or enter a place with open an offshore account.
So you say that you (or everyone else in the UK) does not have the opportunity to open an offshore account. Suggestion is that you google it, because you will find its available, its not so available as it once was, but certainly if you want to offshore some wealth you can. How does the opportunity not exists. (Tip you dont even need to fund a foreign army, cut off your arms or even predict every weeks lottery numbers)

I don't plan on responding to any more of your wierd extreme examples, im just far too grounded in reality I am afraid.

 

[Diagro]

So.. If i sell a house and get them to pay me via BT to my off shore account. Will i avoid paying Tax on the added income?

 

[Hagar]

So.. If i sell a house and get them to pay me via BT to my off shore account. Will i avoid paying Tax on the added income?

Until you import the return and pay CGT on it

If you bought £200000 in shares with your house money after tax, sell £20,000 price at purchase for £30k, re-import the gain and claim for 10K capital gain which is within the annual limit, you pay no tax.

Rinse and repeat the sale each year. As long as you do not exceed the limits or break rules on ownership and tax jurisdictions, it should be quite reasonable.

 

[Dunks]

So.. If i sell a house and get them to pay me via BT to my off shore account. Will i avoid paying Tax on the added income?

No, that's tax evasion.

 

[drakioned]

I don't plan on responding to any more of your wierd extreme examples, im just far too grounded in reality I am afraid.

Okay, but if you're so grounded in reality, why are you even here?

Nobody who believes in their god-given right to dodge taxes will change their mind to GD, and nobody who believes in their god-given right to tax the rich will change their mind due to GD either.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

So.. If i sell a house and get them to pay me via BT to my off shore account. Will i avoid paying Tax on the added income?

If it was your primary residence you don't need to..

Bit if it wasn't then its tax evasion, tut tut! (and your quite likely to get caught as the sale has to be registered with land registry)

 

[dowie]

So.. If i sell a house and get them to pay me via BT to my off shore account. Will i avoid paying Tax on the added income?

you don't pay tax on your primary residence

assuming it is a second home then it doesn't really work like that anyway... you could have an offshore company or trust own the house and then sell ownership of that offshore trust or company - as far as the UK is concerned the house is still owned by the same trust or company, the buyer gets to avoid stamp duty too. This has been cracked down on now as you'd have to pay a higher stamp duty rate when the trust or company buys the house initially.

 

[do_ron_ron]

No, it illustrates a) the double standards being employed by the morality mob;

The two situations are not even remotely comparable.

and b) the sheer impossibility of Labour's stated plan to clear out all offshore tax havens, which, if implemented, would devalue the pension fund of every single person in the country

As to the impossibility, with international cooperation it could be achieved. It was international cooperation that allowed the situation to develop so the same could be used to alter it. It would not devalue pension funds but make it more difficult to get the same level of returns in the future. I have every faith in the financial sector to come up with some other wheeze.

 

[robin7]

Right so I'm from Gibraltar not the UK, but just giving an opinion.

What confuses me is this notion. You say it's accessible to everyone provided they have enough money and that means it's 'fair'? However you also have higher taxes for higher earners (akin to most places).

So the UK believes those that earn more, should pay a higher rate of tax/more tax in general.

But you have loopholes that can only be used IF you're a high earner. Which allow you to pay a lower effective tax rate than low earners?

How on earth can anyone see that and think it's ok or fair? Or at least how can you see it as in line with what is being preached that higher earners should pay a higher rate of tax...?

 

[RDM]

The two situations are not even remotely comparable.

They are somewhat comparable as in they evidence the fact that many investments are done in a similar way, investments almost all working people have a stake in. You are right in that it isn't exactly the same as choosing to use an offshore fund.

It would not devalue pension funds but make it more difficult to get the same level of returns in the future.

Doesn't that mean that the pension fund is less valuable? So it would have a negative impact on pension funds.

 

[Dolph]

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

In the bit of my post you removed, presumably to try and avoid answering it.

 

[Danthus]

Should moral and ethics be factored in to the tax rules, yes they should.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

But you have loopholes that can only be used IF you're a high earner.

No thats not the case, thats the issue some people seem to think it is when it isn't.

But saying that its far easier to avoid tax if your a very high net wealth individual should yo choose to.

In reality most of the time its not earnings that are the issue but wealth.

 

[Dolph]

Should moral and ethics be factored in to the tax rules, yes they should.

But should we look at outcomes or just principles? Is the principle of paying tax more important ethically than increasing the wealth of the state?

This is not a troll or a hypothetical, there is a genuinely interesting debate to be had here.

Why do we tax? What is the purpose of it and who providss a genuine contribution towarss that purpose?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Should moral and ethics be factored in to the tax rules, yes they should.

Finally we agree, as long as we agree that the morals are those of the majority of successful people and not those of the bottom scroungers

 

[Danthus]

But should we look at outcomes or just principles? Is the principle of paying tax more important ethically than increasing the wealth of the state?

This is not a troll or a hypothetical, there is a genuinely interesting debate to be had here.

Why do we tax? What is the purpose of it and who providss a genuine contribution towarss that purpose?

Define a genuine contribution.

Carers looking after family members, they are unpaid but save the state a fortune, that provide a huge contribution to society.

Someone earning £100,000 may pay more tax but it doesn't mean they contribute more.