Panama Papers

joeyjojo said:
It's strange isn't it? Even the centre of my sleepy home town has three large residential sites/rows of houses of £1m each (and one modest flat! :confused:) registered with offshore companies (BVI, Costa Rica, the Isle of Man, and Guernsey). There must be a reason to go to these lengths, but is it just secrecy or nefarious? Who knows.
Click to expand...

Probably a stamp duty dodge.
 
satchef1 said:
I'm not sure that follows. If HMRC don't have enough evidence to take a business or individual to court, then why would that business or individual settle out of court? Surely they would just laugh at HMRC's request and carry on doing what they are doing?
Click to expand...

It boils down to the fact that the world isn't black or white. Where there is a situation when neither parties are certain who is actually right (and that happens a lot) then a settlement will generally be reached. This is because it ends up being cheaper for everyone concerned, except for the tax silks who lose out on masses amounts of revenue as they can't charge for the litigation.

This is generally what happens in the "sweetheart deals" that everyone gets annoyed about. It is just a pragmatic solution to a very, very expensive undertaking where neither side are really sure they're going to win.
 
RaohNS said:
I was aware and that's what I am saying. Clearly if these dependencies (think that is an appropriate word) are harboring these types of thing then the Govt (despite them all being in the trough) should step in.

We can hope Corbyn will be using the line "we're all in this together" and now we know what that means its a double entendre that's as much a joke to them as it is a morally and possibly illegitimat means. Jokes on the working class
Click to expand...

Aah my apologies, I thought your post was implying nothing was being done when clearly things are being done.

Of course the question remains whether it will be effective given the amended agreement is new and still to come into effect in some countries. Will be interesting to see whether it actually helps or not.
 
joeyjojo said:
The number of people defending the avoiders/evaders in this thread says it all!
Click to expand...

I actually give up trying to explain the difference between avoidance and evasion, and why you yourself are a tax avoider.

The argument "but they do it on a bigger scale!" doesn't really work.
 
Nice to see we are getting tough on tax issues at last. ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35985360

Families who have been overpaid tax credits will have to repay the money at a much faster rate from now on, under government changes.

Tax credit claimants with a household income of more than £20,000 will see any historic overpayments clawed back at a much faster rate.

The UK tax authority said this would cut the time that people spent in debt.

But campaigners have argued that some claimants will face "serious financial hardship".
Click to expand...

I love that line.

Maybe these people can negotiate sweetheart deal?
 
Pudney said:
This is generally what happens in the "sweetheart deals" that everyone gets annoyed about. It is just a pragmatic solution to a very, very expensive undertaking where neither side are really sure they're going to win.
Click to expand...

The other issue with criminal cases for tax evasion is that they're often very complex. It's almost impossible for a jury to reach the correct verdict. Even with the right evidence, prosecuting someone is a gamble.

The whole system needs reform.
 
Tunney said:
The other issue with criminal cases for tax evasion is that they're often very complex. It's almost impossible for a jury to reach the correct verdict. Even with the right evidence, prosecuting someone is a gamble.

The whole system needs reform.
Click to expand...

I think criminal cases tend to be quite rare and if evasion are typically passed on to the National Crime Agency for prosecution. I don't really know why they don't prosecute more (maybe they do and I don't know of course!).

I do know the threat of criminal proceedings has made many a subject more compliant and led to them dealing with HMRC. That is possibly enough to convince HMRC/NTA not to actually proceed more often.
 
satchef1 said:
I'm not sure that follows. If HMRC don't have enough evidence to take a business or individual to court, then why would that business or individual settle out of court? Surely they would just laugh at HMRC's request and carry on doing what they are doing?
Click to expand...

That's because their accountants agree with HMRC's assessment that what they're doing falls outside of the rules. So they pay the amount owed. Or not.

HMRC don't send companies (or individuals who self assess) a statement stating 'you owe x amount', because they simply don't know what figure would be. Remember, a company is not taxed at source like you and I. The company/individual fills out a tax return of what they calculate is owed. Naturally, they will try to arrange things (and this is legal) so as to minimise that amount. The methods used are what then may be disputed.


Pudney said:
I think criminal cases tend to be quite rare and if evasion are typically passed on to the National Crime Agency for prosecution. I don't really know why they don't prosecute more (maybe they do and I don't know of course!).

I do know the threat of criminal proceedings has made many a subject more compliant and led to them dealing with HMRC. That is possibly enough to convince HMRC/NTA not to actually proceed more often.
Click to expand...

Says here,
HMRC has assessed that using its powers to investigate by civil means is usually the best way to recover missing tax at the lowest cost. It pursues criminal prosecution for cases where it believes it needs to send a strong deterrent message or when, given the severity of the fraud, it considers prosecution the only appropriate action.
Click to expand...
 
Hambut_Bulge said:
That's because their accountants agree with HMRC's assessment that what they're doing falls outside of the rules. So they pay the amount owed. Or not.
Click to expand...

Generally no. Generally it's because accountants agree that the situation isn't clear one way or the other and the the cost is prohibitive to pursue.

Although it does happen as you state. Normally when you get a walk in request for help from a new client and you see the advice they got previously was a shambles.

Says here,
Click to expand...

I genuinely don't really know. I do know that whenever I see a case in the tax tribunal that is also being prosecuted under criminal law as well, it's normally the NCA (or its precursor) that is doing the prosecuting. So I'm guessing after that :D
 
Pudney said:
Aah my apologies, I thought your post was implying nothing was being done when clearly things are being done.

Of course the question remains whether it will be effective given the amended agreement is new and still to come into effect in some countries. Will be interesting to see whether it actually helps or not.
Click to expand...

Of course. Its just with many of these places being crown dependencies its easier to stamp a foot in.

As we both already know and likely you more so than I can say for certain is that as these are dependencies an agreement of sorts is surely going to be more simple no?
 
RaohNS said:
So you are clearly 100% fine with a tiny fraction of people having virtually everything while millions don't. You are ok with 80-100 people having more money than half the planet, you are fine with 5 UK families having more than 12million and you are happy with that situation to not just continue but get worse. Would you be happy for 10 people to have more wealth that 6billion people? Oh of course you would. Its people or should I say delusional and self serving morally defunct fools like you who are happy with millions dying or condemned to suffering because of how much brass they have who should be shot.

Share the wealth there is plenty to go around. I'm not advocating a bin man getting the same as a professor I am saying how much obscene wealth is enough. You think they can and should have everything. Me and many more than in your camp think like me.

Oh edit: Free world... Ok back to your little box of "freedom"
Click to expand...

I do think that the top paid employee of a company should only earn x times more than the lowest employed person in said company
 
RaohNS said:
Share the wealth there is plenty to go around. I'm not advocating a bin man getting the same as a professor I am saying how much obscene wealth is enough. You think they can and should have everything. Me and many more than in your camp think like me.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your philosophy to an extent (I don't think it should be based on the lowest paid in your company), I think you're living in a dream world if you think it is possible and would work.

There will always be corruption, no matter what the system.

Do I think it is good that a footballer can earn £300k a week? Definitely not. In the perfect world people would be much more like Bill Gates and invest their money into community, health and technology products for the betterment of the human race.

The most anyone person needs must surely be up to $100m? There has to be a point more money makes zero difference to your lifestyle. There was an interesting reddit post on this which compared the attitudes and culture of the various levels of "rich". It's funny, once you reached a billion net worth people became more casual and didn't care what others thought - much like lower classes I suppose.

I think the carrot method is much better than the stick (taxes) though. The carrot allows the investor to pick areas that mean most to them and they can probably invest it more efficiently than Government. They also won't lose their drive to earn more money like you would if there was a 100% tax above $xm per year.
 
glen8 said:
I do think that the top paid employee of a company should only earn x times more than the lowest employed person in said company
Click to expand...

Another fair and socially moral concept. In my view people who have over £100,000,000 (to put that into perspective you would need to work an average job for 4,000years or a NMW wage job for 7,500+yrs or you would need 40-100 generations of your family to work) should have any money made subject to 100% tax. If they spend £2m in a year they can earn £2m up to that threshold.

That would go to great lengths to improving the true trickle down economics as effectively they are left with a hard choice: spend your earning to benefit others or have it taken off you to be distributed. I'm fine people having money, really, but what I am against is wealth so obscene it is more than morally unacceptable, it is a crime. To earn Bill Gates fortune on minimum wage you would have to live for 3m-5m years. Some people have no problem with that. I do.

These tax havens burrow away vast fortunes
 
Kemik said:
While I agree with your philosophy to an extent (I don't think it should be based on the lowest paid in your company), I think you're living in a dream world if you think it is possible and would work.

There will always be corruption, no matter what the system.

Do I think it is good that a footballer can earn £300k a week? Definitely not. In the perfect world people would be much more like Bill Gates and invest their money into community, health and technology products for the betterment of the human race.

The most anyone person needs must surely be up to $100m? There has to be a point more money makes zero difference to your lifestyle. There was an interesting reddit post on this which compared the attitudes and culture of the various levels of "rich". It's funny, once you reached a billion net worth people became more casual and didn't care what others thought - much like lower classes I suppose.

I think the carrot method is much better than the stick (taxes) though. The carrot allows the investor to pick areas that mean most to them and they can probably invest it more efficiently than Government. They also won't lose their drive to earn more money like you would if there was a 100% tax above $xm per year.
Click to expand...

Thank you. And yes, the difficulty would require harsh or draconian measures to enforce. Corruption is the common denominator when talking of money and the golden rule.

Bill Gates, well how much impact does he really have by his so called "wealth distribution" I would argue little to none. Lets not kid ourselves here charitable donations are tax deductible. His fortune is stratospheric and getting bigger. He could by a car every second and still have change.

You've put my point that when does an amount become enough. What item is more than xxmillion?

And yes the carrot is preferable but is precisely too weak against the gargantuan force of unlimited money.

I often say if I won big on the Euros (£100m) after immediate spending (mortgage and paying off debts and a holiday, security for kids and spare for grandkids etc) my hope would be to give it all away. I would pay for people to do University who could not otherwise afford it. That means I could put nearly 3,000 people through uni based on sharing 80% of the wealth and still have xxm left.

Who knows maybe at the end they might by into an idea and send £500 a year back to me to spend getting others through uni
 
RaohNS said:
Bill Gates, well how much impact does he really have by his so called "wealth distribution" I would argue little to none. Lets not kid ourselves here charitable donations are tax deductible. His fortune is stratospheric and getting bigger. He could by a car every second and still have change.
Click to expand...

In which case I think you either haven't read up enough about the man or are so bitter to those with money that you are blind.

Bill Gates is one of the rare examples whereby he is trying to use his wealth to help people. The foundation he set up will continue after his life. His children will be looked after, but they won't be billionaires.

I much prefer what he is trying to do than short termism and politics of Governments, who traditionally hate funding science and technology. They tend to do what the UK Gov does - push money to random organisations in third world countries and never see where it goes. These kinds of foundations measure the performance of their investments and manage them appropriately to ensure they are properly used. Wouldn't you if it was your money?

You might find this article a good read.
 
Last edited:
Kemik said:
In which case I think you either haven't read up enough about the man or are so bitter to those with money that you are blind.

Bill Gates is one of the rare examples whereby he is trying to use his wealth to help people. The foundation he set up will continue after his life. His children will be looked after, but they won't be billionaires.

I much prefer what he is trying to do than short termism and politics of Governments, who traditionally hate funding science and technology. They tend to do what the UK Gov does - push money to random organisations in third world countries and never see where it goes. These kinds of foundations measure the performance of their investments and manage them appropriately to ensure they are properly used. Wouldn't you if it was your money?

You might find this article a good read.
Click to expand...

Dont hate the guy at all. Just do have some disagreements with his views on tax when it comes to the super rich. I don't doubt that he doesn't give money away but he could give 70,000,000 families a thousand each and still have billions. He could do greater things. Thanks for the link I will read and see if it changes my opinion of impact :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom