'Jeremy Corbyn's £3million state salary'

Off the top of my head, regarding corporations, the tax office should badge their accounts gold silver bronze for tax avoidance and companies should be legally required to display that badge on their accounts.

re Amazon changing their UK tax practices after a PR disaster it could have an impact on all sorts of corporations.

Of course I didn't go to Eaton off the back of a dodgy estate, nor have I spent years on the payroll of the taxpayer protesting, but frankly it's more than is currently being done by either party.
 
stewski said:
Which does a disservice to those that pay full tax, let those who seek to avoid British tax somewhere that isn't protected by the British tax payers.
Click to expand...

They already do, hence a lot of sport people are in Monaco.
 
stewski said:
I can see you are avoiding the point of his fathers affairs.

Personally if I had a privileged private education/background paid for by an estate now known for "morally unacceptable" tax avoidance, I'd see it as hypocritical to point the finger at others.

That said I'd welcome changes to the tax laws in British territories from any quarter.

As for what I think of DC personally; simply irrelevant to if he is hypocritical on this issue or not.
Click to expand...

Of course it's relevant as you have a chip on your shoulder. Your position is ridiculous, as you are calling DC a hypocrite for benefitting from something his father has done. How is he expected not to benefit at all through any part of his life from his fathers financial dealings to satisfy you?
 
Last edited:
Bear said:
Of course it's relevant as you have a chip on your shoulder. Your position is ridiculous, as you are calling DC a hypocrite for benefitting from something his father has done. How is he expected not to benefit at all through any part of his life from his fathers financial dealings to satisfy you?
Click to expand...

You are trying to reason someone out of a position they irrationally hold. It won't work, because he has no interest in facts or thinking critically.
 
Serious statement: What if the rich were penalized as stringently and cruelly as the poor?

Allow me to draw a method.

Child Support law: If you fail to provide information when requested or knowingly lie or attempt to mislead you will be subject to criminal law (as was kindly said to me by a lovely lady a couple of months ago at the CMS)

If they fail to provide information or do not comply remove passports immediately without the need for Court, seize money instantly from bank accounts (without warrant), guess what they owe and then take it (without court order), remove driving license (without court order) and finally and most significantly jail the individual in a court where your assessment overrules any and all evidence and any previous court orders? And when they come out of prison they still owe the amount.

Obviously, if they are non-Dom you can simply put in and reach a deal with the country ala the child maintenance system.

Another option is to put through an order of sale (that cannot be legally challenged as the organization can overrule the law of the land?) Just thinking as this has been under child support law for a decade plus. Seems harsh but why is it only the poor who are subject to this?
 
RaohNS said:
Another option is to put through an order of sale (that cannot be legally challenged as the organization can overrule the law of the land?) Just thinking as this has been under child support law for a decade plus. Seems harsh but why is it only the poor who are subject to this?
Click to expand...

It isn't only the poor that are subject to it. If a rich person doesn't pay child support the same sanctions are available.
 
RaohNS said:
Serious statement: What if the rich were penalized as stringently and cruelly as the poor?

Allow me to draw a method.

Child Support law: If you fail to provide information when requested or knowingly lie or attempt to mislead you will be subject to criminal law (as was kindly said to me by a lovely lady a couple of months ago at the CMS)

If they fail to provide information or do not comply remove passports immediately without the need for Court, seize money instantly from bank accounts (without warrant), guess what they owe and then take it (without court order), remove driving license (without court order) and finally and most significantly jail the individual in a court where your assessment overrules any and all evidence and any previous court orders? And when they come out of prison they still owe the amount.

Obviously, if they are non-Dom you can simply put in and reach a deal with the country ala the child maintenance system.

Another option is to put through an order of sale (that cannot be legally challenged as the organization can overrule the law of the land?) Just thinking as this has been under child support law for a decade plus. Seems harsh but why is it only the poor who are subject to this?
Click to expand...

Tax evasion is already a criminal offence, the problem is people confusing evasion and avoidance to make misleading arguments.
 
RDM said:
It isn't only the poor that are subject to it. If a rich person doesn't pay child support the same sanctions are available.
Click to expand...

Well actually it isn't. The incentives for the rich to comply are great eg Child Support law has a maximum amount. Eg husband and wife split. Husband is super wealthy £1m+ per year. A court might decide he should pay £20k a month in maintenance. He has an option I) approach the CMS before an order is made final to reduce his liability or II) wait 10months after a court order and apply to the CMS who will impose the limit which is certainly less than the 20k.

To Dolph: Yes I agree 100% but legislating for the crushing child support laws went ahead ot also exceeds all legal standards and precedents and acts pretty much arbitrarily and how it likes. Imagine that type of law being arbitrarily fired off at the super rich.

People on benefits can have money seized, be fined, threatened with imprisonment and however many other actions (sometimes over "money owed being tiny eg I helped a colleague of mine over a letter from the council concerning a 2009 debt which she knows she paid and they have essentially threatened legal action or further on collection methods (send in the bailiffs).

Now over this hundred and something pound debt that is the threat but people cheating millions or even billions in tax evasion or what they legally term the fraud "avoidance" they can continue to do so.

If they can create child support laws that can act without court authority to do just Willy nilly in some circumstances there should be a system of equal power to do the same
 
Attachment of earnings orders etc are subject to court oversight before enforcement. That the courts will rarely refuse a request or find against CMS is a different issue.

Even with that in mind, the fact that we have created a bad set of precedents doesn't mean we should spread them about.
 
Dolph said:
You are trying to reason someone out of a position they irrationally hold. It won't work, because he has no interest in facts or thinking critically.
Click to expand...

None of this rhetoric actually says anything against the idea of grading accounts based on their level of avoidance and compelling organisations and individuals to have that badge on their accounts.

Bronze for Google, Gold for another provider, it could be a powerful persuader in many cases.

But no, there is nothing that can be done, the ruling elite are untouchable?
 
stewski said:
None of this rhetoric actually says anything against the idea of grading accounts based on their level of avoidance and compelling organisations and individuals to have that badge on their accounts.

Bronze for Google, Gold for another provider, it could be a powerful persuader in many cases.

But no, there is nothing that can be done, the ruling elite are untouchable?
Click to expand...

But this brings us back to ethics by contribution rather than compliance, and back the argument that corbyn would be rated worse because although he complies, he doesn't contribute because he just recycles taxpayer money to pay his taxes.
 
Dolph said:
Attachment of earnings orders etc are subject to court oversight before enforcement. That the courts will rarely refuse a request or find against CMS is a different issue.

Even with that in mind, the fact that we have created a bad set of precedents doesn't mean we should spread them about.
Click to expand...

CSA don't need court orders. "we have been informed you have Mr Smith working for you and you must now deduct the amount we tell you from his payments or else we will fine you £1,000 per month". Sounds crazy but its true and I've had a couple of friends subject to the DEO (CMS/CSA term)

Lets not forget the CSA imprisons 10+ men a year every year without a trial and makes 14+ children 16 or under homeless each year with the right to a fair hearing denied in that particular case. In some states in the US not paying child support can prevent you getting or having a job!

What I was trying to push towards as you could no doubt guess was that harsh systems are there to be used for one set of people: The poor. Where rules are chocolate fireguards to the wealthy elites
 
Dolph said:
But this brings us back to ethics by contribution rather than compliance, and back the argument that corbyn would be rated worse because although he complies, he doesn't contribute because he just recycles taxpayer money to pay his taxes.
Click to expand...

Only in an insane world. You could clearly grade on level of avoidance.
 
RaohNS said:
CSA don't need court orders. "we have been informed you have Mr Smith working for you and you must now deduct the amount we tell you from his payments or else we will fine you £1,000 per month". Sounds crazy but its true and I've had a couple of friends subject to the DEO (CMS/CSA term)

Lets not forget the CSA imprisons 10+ men a year every year without a trial and makes 14+ children 16 or under homeless each year with the right to a fair hearing denied in that particular case. In some states in the US not paying child support can prevent you getting or having a job!

What I was trying to push towards as you could no doubt guess was that harsh systems are there to be used for one set of people: The poor. Where rules are chocolate fireguards to the wealthy elites
Click to expand...

My mother in law used to work for the csa, those deductions you mention are court sanctioned.
 
stewski said:
Only in an insane world. You could clearly grade on level of avoidance.
Click to expand...

But tax avoidance is a failure of government, not the individual, and meaningless without also looking at contribution.

This does assume of course that there is an actual purpose to your actions, not just an irrational hatred or actions driven by jealously...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom