Panama Papers

[chroniclard]

Personally, like billions of other people, I try to pay as little tax as possible via whatever legal means are available.

 

[RaohNS]

Oh dear.

1) might be right about the fair and socially moral concept, but you are wrong about the hard choice wealthy people would face. If the UK was the only place on earth, and people had to work, your idea might fly. But in the real world, if you present people with £100m+ a choice of a marginal tax rate of 100% in the UK and 20% (or whatever) in the US, or Monaco, or a load of other places, guess which they are likely to pick?

2) suppose for argument's sake some proportion of that group don't want to leave the UK, maybe because of family here or other non-financial reasons. Then what? Well, if I had a £100m net worth, and the lifestyle that goes with it, and some government tells me that I can run a business, make money and they're going to tax it at 100%, my response would be that I can live quite nicely on a mere £100m, and that unless the work and more specifically risk of running the business generates a reasonable return, I just won't bother running it. Not only would government revenue from my extra earnings be zero, because the extra earnings would be zero, but the business would close and employees are going to be looking for another job, or claiming benefit.

50% tax on a few million quid extra annual income is better for government, and other taxpayers, than 100% of nowt.

3) the problem with setting fiscal policy by the politics of envy. In the real world, it doesn't work.

4) you think the possibility of a government setting punitive tax rates hasn't occurred to the very rich? That many, most or maybe all haven't taken steps to prepare for it? There's a reason most people in that bracket have homes in multiple countries and "assets" offshore. Saving tax is, believe me, a long way from the only reason to have offshore investments, or offshore bank accounts. Nor is there anything at all illegal or immoral about doing so, provided you declare any relevant income, profits or gains, and pay the tax due.

5) outrage over obscene wealth is all very well, but in the real world the ultra-rich group you target are absolutely the most mobile people on earth. They choose where to live, and can change it more or less on a whim. And bear in mind, in the UK, quite a large number of very wealthy people living here, and paying taxes here, are doing so *because* of UK tax regimes, and are actually not native Brits in the first place. Remove the attractiveness of the tax regime and you remove much or all of the incentive to reside, for tax purposes, here in the first place.

1) True enough based on the facts that follow but if they did leave there is a strong possibility others would take up that position. Its a hypothesis with some credible backing already

2) You are of course correct in many regards and have shown how it works for selfish people and those who have the thinking of greed is good. Morally its wrong. The other massive flaw in that idea and the jobs being lost is that consumers dictate demand and in true true true reality the people operating at that level of wealth directly employ very few people and the business generates the income. If customers demand the product someone who has topped out at 100m make they will not just close the business as other interested parties would be looking for a deal of some kind. Market force is the prevailing factor that debunks that argument here (otherwise we are not a market driven economy (which of course we are))

3) Agreed but it takes a hard a d harsh vector to change that view

4) Again I agree in principle, if I won the Euros I'd have a property somewhere in the Caribbean although for vastly and drastically different reasons. To prove my point look at the number of non lived in homes that are there purely as a way to evade tax eyes from other countries in London.

5) of course we may see "brain drain" but market forces dictate. New thought: If this is the case do we think that this cabal of people are now so rich as to truly show that fairness in wealth is now nigh on impossible and the have it alls will forever have the have little to nothing-at-alls forever over a barrel? Its as has been said: Workers today are far more productive yet work for comparatively less while the majority of capital gained goes to the higher echelons. Its what Bernie is saying as we have seen trillions of dollars moving from the middle class to the richest corporations and people. That is irrefuteable. There is less to be had for most now

 

[balky12]

Personally, like billions of other people, I try to pay as little tax as possible via whatever legal means are available.

+1

Isn't this over something like ~£20k as well?

Also, it was his dad that set it up, when he was like ~20..

Jealousy is a cruel thing.

 

[Tunney]

+1

Isn't this over something like ~£20k as well?

Also, it was his dad that set it up, when he was like ~20..

Jealousy is a cruel thing.

It's not about the amount or about jealousy, it's about:

1) Cameron publically criticising the likes of Jimmy Carr over their tax affairs whilst benefitting from similar offshore tax schemes

2) The conflict of interest created by these hidden offshore investments

 

[Hambut_Bulge]

Cameron publically criticising the likes of Jimmy Carr over their tax affairs whilst benefitting from similar offshore tax schemes

Who criticised Gary Barlow et al first... Glass houses and all that. Still, with hindsight Cameron probably wishing he'd kept his gob shut now

Corbyn's having a bad day too

 

[Hambut_Bulge]

The conflict of interest created by these hidden offshore investments

FT's behind a pay-wall. Could you quote the relevant bits please?

 

[Pudney]

1) Cameron publically criticising the likes of Jimmy Carr over their tax affairs whilst benefitting from similar offshore tax schemes

Other than the fact they're offshore and use a trust legal entity the two things are not similar.

 

[Tunney]

FT's behind a pay-wall. Could you quote the relevant bits please?

David Cameron’s EU intervention on trusts set up tax loophole

Prime minister wrote to Brussels requesting special treatment for inheritance-planning vehicles

David Cameron personally intervened in 2013 to weaken an EU drive to reveal the beneficiaries of trusts, creating a possible loophole that other European nations warned could be exploited by tax evaders.

The disclosure of the prime minister’s resistance to opening up trusts to full scrutiny comes as he faces intense pressure to make clear whether his family stands to benefit from offshore assets linked to his late father.

Although Mr Cameron championed corporate tax transparency, he wrote in November 2013 to Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council at the time, to argue that trusts widely used for inheritance planning in Britain should win special treatment in an EU law to tackle money laundering.

...

 

[drs101]

So he may not have shares / money in his name but in a trust?

 

[FishFluff]

Absolutely and it's understandable they act this way. Our media crucify anyone they can with no sense of proportion. If they can get a scalp, they will.

I don't recall many complaints on this forum about press standards when Corbyn was being hounded about his national anthem non-participation, his thoughts on the monarchy, what bicycle he rides or who he's had a relationship with. Yet as soon as it's Dave in the spotlight everyone on here is up in arms about it.

 

[datalol-jack]

And, as if on cue, the ghost of Lib Dem past speaketh.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...vid-cameron-cold-feet-tax-avoidance-crackdown

A bit less shrill than the remainder of the Guardian's line-up on the scandal, imho. I think Dave should've gone with his instincts on the whole affair, come clean and moved on before it grew into anything. He had a chance.

Now these 'niggles' are compounding other political considerations, making the spin awful and the situation awkward; a typical painted oneself into a corner, 'doh' moment.

 

[doodah]

I don't really use roll eyes but the outrage at this tweet fully deserves some:

 

[[TW]Fox]

This is genuinely ridiculous - he had some shares which he sold before he became PM and paid UK tax on the proceeds.

People are acting as if he's some sort of deliberately shady big time tax crook, it's almost as if they WANT to believe that because it suits whatever opinion they already held so have taken this and run with it, perhaps through lack of understanding, perhaps through not being that bothered about the facts anyway.

I can't believe people are even calling for resignation!? For what?

 

[McPhee]

This is genuinely ridiculous - he had some shares which he sold before he became PM and paid UK tax on the proceeds.

People are acting as if he's some sort of deliberately shady big time tax crook, it's almost as if they WANT to believe that because it suits whatever opinion they already held so have taken this and run with it, perhaps through lack of understanding, perhaps through not being that bothered about the facts anyway.

I can't believe people are even calling for resignation!? For what?

It has all gotten a little silly, hasn't it?

The idea that the PM could resign over such trivial nonsense is amazing. I'm no fan of the PM, but if he's going I'd rather it was down to something worthwhile. Maybe actual tax dodging, rather than perceived?...

 

[PermaBanned]

If the prime minister had any sense of duty or honour he would resign, but I don't expect him to. This is not a trivial matter by any means, this is an utter betrayal of the British taxpayer and totally undermines his government's narrative that they're cracking down on tax avoidance. How can the British public possibly trust this man to do that now?

Even if what he did is technically legal, by his own measure we should hold him to a higher moral standard. If he's going to call others "morally wrong" for their tax arrangements, we should definitely do the same when it turns out that he's done far worse than that.

 

[Bear]

If the prime minister had any sense of duty or honour he would resign, but I don't expect him to. This is not a trivial matter by any means, this is an utter betrayal of the British taxpayer and totally undermines his government's narrative that they're cracking down on tax avoidance. How can the British public possibly trust this man to do that now?

Even if what he did is technically legal, by his own measure we should hold him to a higher moral standard. If he's going to call others "morally wrong" for their tax arrangements, we should definitely do the same when it turns out that he's done far worse than that.

What on earth are you talking about? He owned shares in an investment trust, what the hell is wrong with that? Hell I own shares in investment trusts within my S&S ISA. Scandal, tax avoiding off shore trusts

 

[PermaBanned]

What on earth are you talking about? He owned shares in an investment trust, what the hell is wrong with that? Hell I own shares in investment trusts within my S&S ISA. Scandal, tax avoiding off shore trusts

What's wrong with that is that is that he knowingly benefited from a scheme he claims to be clamping down on. What's wrong with that is that he actively campaigned against legislation that would have required overseas territories' tax arrangements to be more transparent, to protect his own reputation. What's wrong with that is that he can not possibly be seen to be impartial in this matter, nor many other matters as a result.

 

[datalol-jack]

Welp, knowing the political climate and the media, I'd wager that it's the guilt by association that's the most damaging.

Should the company's '100% above board' bit fall, you end up in the same basket as what would be then publicly known crooks and people who flaunt international sanctions. It'd be hard to positively spin that, even if the PM was a complete angel. Nobody is 'just Dave' in politics, and for leaders the standard rises even further. In some cases hypocritically so, but them's the joys of public life.

 

[Bear]

What's wrong with that is that is that he knowingly benefited from a scheme he claims to be clamping down on. What's wrong with that is that he actively campaigned against legislation that would have required overseas territories' tax arrangements to be more transparent, to protect his own reputation. What's wrong with that is that he can not possibly be seen to be impartial in this matter, nor many other matters as a result.

There is a difference between buying shares in a trust that then invests that money in equities, say the S&P 500 or biotech companies compared to trusts (EBTs) who's sole purpose is to avoid tax. From what I can gather Cameron had shares in the first example, Jimmy Carr used the second.

 

[McPhee]

Welp, knowing the political climate and the media, I'd wager that it's the guilt by association that's the most damaging.

Should the company's '100% above board' bit fall, you end up in the same basket as what would be then publicly known crooks and people who flaunt international sanctions. It'd be hard to positively spin that, even if the PM was a complete angel. Nobody is 'just Dave' in politics, and for leaders the standard rises even further. In some cases hypocritically so, but them's the joys of public life.

Problem is, there's currently no evidence of any wrongdoing. It's the Prime Minister's critics applying spin to the facts

Until there's evidence that the PM evaded paying tax on earnings in the UK, it's a bit premature to call for his resignation.