Panama Papers
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
1) I doubt others would follow. Or not many, anyway. To close a business is relatively easy, but starting a direct replacement is much harder, and is an option that may only be open to those that have, or have access to, similar levels of capital.
It also presupposes that a vacuum is left in the market. This may not be the case. The wealthy person may retain the businsss, but move tax residence. The jobs from businesses would remain, but the government loses all tax revenue on personal income, capital gains, inheritance, etc. Or, the wealthy person moves abroad and shifts manufacturing abroad too, but keeps existing customer contracts. The jobs, however, go abroad. I know one family that did exactly that, though it was a dispute with an intractable union not a tax issue. The company got round that intractable union by shifting all manufacturing abroad. Of about 140 employees, a dozen or so were offered relocation packages, and about half accepted and emigrated. The rest? I do know the company lost very little business, reduced prices because vists were lower, and even increased product quality. Not much changed, except the country where the jobs existed, and as a byproduct not an objective in that case, the entire family, and their not inconsiderable wealth, left the country.
2) It's morally wrong to not be prepared to work for nothing? To object to the government charging you 100% on income? I don't agree. What matters isn't whether it's wrong or not, but what works. What's the objective of a Chancellor increasing a tax rate? Is it a moral campaign against the rich, or is it to raise tax revenue? I suggest the clue is in the "R" bit of HMRC.
4) Tax evasion isn't the only reason for empty homes, if you're referring to expensive houses, often in London. In many cases, if's not even in the top two reasons. One major reason is that they're seen as good investment vehicles, given the level of house price inflation. A second reason for foreign owners having houses here is exactly the same as why very rich people here have houses overseas. That is, not keeping all your eggs in one basket. Suppose you had that £100m? Do you think you might store a decent chunk of it abroad where it's out of the grasp of UK tax authorities? And entirely legally. Rhere's nothing preventing UK taxpayers owning assets abroad, provided you declare taxable foreign income and pay any tax due on capital gains on disposal
Last edited:
Burning the midnight oil eh
1) That's fine, they can move the tax residence but I've said for a long time now that companies like Amazon and Starbucks (from the days of AoL) should have a tax on their UK generated profit. Individuals eg like Lord Green should be made aware that we know in country x your wealth is £100m so in the UK under UK law where you make money an additional levy might be applied. Yes he would still find a way of increasing his wealth but the Govt would draw in more wealth (he pays no UK tax btw).
2) Revenue is the prime responsibility of that area of government. Its like the 50% rate. It was cut because as I recall the Govt said it only generates £254m a year? Ok so that generates something. Enough in fact to build a hospital or train a few hundred doctors. Revenue generated by the government and distributed (a socialist idea if ever there was one) helps those in need - benefits or DLA
3) (yo 4) No I would keep it UK based or have a smaller amount in other main accounts where I may have my holiday home.
Aside from this I think the main gripe I have is the cycle that repeats ad infinitum and it is as is undeniable the poor who suffer most. Even when tax for the very wealthy was at 90% they were still buying their yachts.
The illusion and lie that "we don't have any money" is exactly that a lie presented under a false axiom that people swallowed up. Much like a friend of mine who received EMA but then agreed with it being scrapped because "we can't afford it anymore mate" then a few months later we drop £300m (the cost of EMA before administration) worth of bombs on Libya. I in fact wrote to my MP about this issue.
At some point in the 80's in both the US and the UK the corporations made their gamble and it has irrefutably paid off in the sums of trillions of pounds
Only people the can defend the nonsense avoidance evasion debate are those already weLthy enough to pay. Politicians need to be very careful to ride well within the lines. Regardless if it's legal or not it's hugely embarrassing for him and rightly so.
If he was brave he and the conservatives would take this opportunity to clean up the rules and the mess of the UK tax system on the side. As well as promote moral responsibility
If he was brave he and the conservatives would take this opportunity to clean up the rules and the mess of the UK tax system on the side. As well as promote moral responsibility
Last edited:
I was in the pub earlier and it had sky news on with subtitles. There was some story about Jimmy Carter not paying his taxes...
Jimmy who, how many pints had you had?
Yes, but you're missing the point.
David Cameron utilised legal mechanisms to minimise his tax liability, therefore he paid the correct amount of tax; tax avoidance.
If Cameron has previously slated and berated those who carry out tax avoidance, but then proceeds to do it himself; at worst he's a hypocrite and his credibility is shot. However, the Jimmy Carr story was tax evasion, so I can see why the PM would use this in his argument.
The irritating thing for me is that much of the press and general clueless public are implying that what he did was illegal, when in fact it was completely legal, just morally dubious for someone in his position.
I'm not a fan of the PM btw.
Last edited:
Personally I always get a little nervous when politicians start promoting morality...
Here's what David Cameron had to say:
What Jimmy Carr invested in was a tax avoidance scheme that was later ruled illegal. No criminal charges with brought.
I really do hope most of you don't have a private pension, as it will most likely be invested in offshore funds, hedge funds or even private equity some of which are asset strippers as well as tax dodgers. I'm sure it will be ok though as its your (not you personally) money instead of someone elses.
Last edited:
Yeah, but he invested in a company that avoids paying tax...
Genuine question for you: at what point shouldn't a company pay UK tax? At what threshold, when you consider the global morality of taxation, does a company become liable for UK corporate taxes?
If an Australian start up gets investment from the UK should that company pay UK tax? What if that start up buys stocks and shares on the New York Stock Exchange? Maybe it invests in other start ups, say in China or India. Does the Australian company have to pay UK tax?
In the case of Blairmore Holdings, wasn't it effectively based in and run from the UK, but with a Bahamian front for tax purposes? Why do that if no tax would be owed in the UK? Sounds like a lot of hassle for no gain.
As for your examples, they aren't even remotely similar.
As for your examples, they aren't even remotely similar.
Last edited:
Yeah, but he invested in a company that avoids paying tax...
More specifically, he invested in a company whose raison d'être was to avoid paying UK tax.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,796
- Location
- Under the Hill
Yeah, but he invested in a company that avoids paying tax...
The company makes a profit in the Bahamas (or wherever) and there was no corporation tax due. It then disburses these profits to shareholders who pay tax based on their local tax laws.
Would you prefer if a 50% withholding tax was applied? What do you this would achieve?
Tax avoidance as a term should be banned. The general public seem unable to differentiate between illegally depriving the revenue service of tax due (evasion) and simply paying the correct tax based on your corporate structure and associated tax allowances.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,599
Why should a worker of this country have any faith in a politician who avoids taxation? They cannot avoid tax.
The politician moralises about sections of the country and then takes decisions about penalising sections of the country.
If he wants to play that game then he should avoid politics.
Otherwise it is just a case of do as I say not as I do and the public belief in corrupt politicians will be strengthened.
ALL politicians should by law have to show annually their tax statements and if found to be hiding/evading/avoiding tax then they should be kicked out of Parliament.
The politician moralises about sections of the country and then takes decisions about penalising sections of the country.
If he wants to play that game then he should avoid politics.
Otherwise it is just a case of do as I say not as I do and the public belief in corrupt politicians will be strengthened.
ALL politicians should by law have to show annually their tax statements and if found to be hiding/evading/avoiding tax then they should be kicked out of Parliament.
Have you read any of the posts above?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,599
A few, why?
As stated above many times, there was nothing wrong with what was done, he was not 'avoiding tax', all due tax was paid on the investment that was made.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
