Panorama and Tax avoidance

[krugerandsmith]

Watched last nights program ...... Took a couple of Blood pressure tablets.

[wymberley]

By the look of it I don't think they worked.

[neil w]

There's at leased 3 of them.

[Eyefor]

Total "Fake News". 

BBC took 15 minutes on the 10pm news to tell us that some people with money were reducing their tax by using tax avoidance (legal) but not tax evasion (illegal).

What a waste of time. 

A guy once told me that if they print on the front page of a newspaper that your sister is a whore, you'll never prove that you don't even have a sister.

[figgy]

It just makes me mad that papers see something that is no way illegal as headlines and program makers are bothering to cover this tripe.  If you have enough money to pay people to find ways of you keeping more of it great. 

The papers and investigative journalists would be better going after the government for its waste of taxpayers money and the amount of new taxes they bring in to take more off us.

[Jaymo]

Agree to the above- total non story and not illegal.

its a scheme available to ANYONE, rich or poor.

If I was still at school we would have called it ‘**** stirring’ 

[TriBsa]

In the days when the BBC was largely a public service broadcaster, Panorama was good. It had investigative journalists who covered and exposed matters in the public interest. But now the BBC is politically implicated and involved it's scope is neutered. You will not see unbiased investigations into say global warming, globalisation, mass immigration, the EU, child grooming gangs etc. Just a few tit bits thrown to the populace that do not offend it's political masters. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by TriBsa

[AVB]

It's a non-story to anybody but the rabid left. 

My previous employer was 'exposed' by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and the Guardian in 2013 using data that they had 'acquired'. Through detailed, and expensive,  forensic analysis of the data they had we narrowed it down to being from a period August-September 2007 i.e 6 years old. But of course they didn't mention that in the exposé did they? No it was just sensationalism - fat Italian opera singer has bank account in Jersey. Shock horror.

I was reviewing my pension the other day and became aware that two of the funds I have invested in are domiciled in Ireland (offshore), one in Luxembourg (offshore) one in Cayman (offshore) and one in Jersey (offshore).

Krugerandsmith - Take a few more tablets and tell me what I have done wrong?   

    

 

[JohnfromUK]

To me - the real problem here is that 'tax avoidance' though it is perfectly legal is a bad thing.  I am in no way 'left wing', but it is not right to me that being very wealthy should enable one to 'avoid' paying tax that would be due on others.

IF tax is to be fair and right, it should not be 'avoidable' legally if you have enough money to employ clever lawyers and accountants to dream up legal (and often very complex) avoidance schemes (and themselves get very rich by helping others 'avoid').  It should also free up some clever minds to do something that is actually 'constructive'!

The underlying problem is that the tax rules are far too complex, with far too many 'loopholes'. 

A fair tax system in my view should tax everyone (remember that VAT is a tax, and virtually everyone pays that in some form) - and those that earn should pay income tax, which should be a bit higher for those that earn more.  There should be no 'loopholes' (e.g. individuals being paid as a company to pay a lower corporation tax) and those that illegally 'evade' should face severe penalties (confiscation of assets, time inside etc.)

If that was set up correctly, we would have a bit more to spend on important things like health, education, transport, deficit repayment etc.  The present system is a joke where tax (large sums worth of tax) can be legally avoided - and show (once again if it was needed) the complete incompetence of our MPs and law makers.

Edited November 6, 2017 by JohnfromUK
spelling!

[Paul1440]

Just watching the news.. why is a man carrying what looks like a tickling stick (I presume a microphone) intrecepting following and harrassing people. I think it's intimidating even if it' only by repeating questions in a rather childish manner? 

So 10 mins of BBC news filled by their own news..   Very poor. 

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Paul1440

[Bigbob]

The queen has 100 million , and three actors from mrs brown boys and thats just the tip of the iceberg  the company are saying the site was hacked so its all illegal information 

[Jaymo]

JohnfromtheUK

thats the thing- you can do it, it’s not just reserved for ‘the Rich’

lets not forget that those in the report are probably already paying well in excess in Taxes than you, I and the PW collective.

where would you like to stop? Remove ISA accounts as they are a legal way of not paying tax on savings 

[AVB]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

To me - the real problem here is that 'tax avoidance' though it is perfectly legal is a bad thing.  I am in no way 'left wing', but it is not right to me that being very wealthy should enable one to 'avoid' paying tax that would be due on others.

IF tax is to be fair and right, it should not be 'avoidable' legally if you have enough money to employ clever lawyers and accountants to dream up legal (and often very complex) avoidance schemes (and themselves get very rich by helping others 'avoid').  It should also free up some clever minds to do something that is actually 'constructive'!

The underlying problem is that the tax rules are far too complex, with far too many 'loopholes'. 

A fair tax system in my view should tax everyone (remember that VAT is a tax, and virtually everyone pays that in some form) - and those that earn should pay income tax, which should be a bit higher for those that earn more.  There should be no 'loopholes' (e.g. individuals being paid as a company to pay a lower corporation tax) and those that illegally 'evade' should face severe penalties (confiscation of assets, time inside etc.)

If that was set up correctly, we would have a bit more to spend on important things like health, education, transport, deficit repayment etc.  The present system is a joke where tax (large sums worth of tax) can be legally avoided - and show (once again if it was needed) the complete incompetence of our MPs and law makers.

You raise some interesting points that are worthy of debate. 

Firstly lets break the link between offshore and tax avoidance. Not everything invested offshore - I quoted some of my pension funds for example - is related to the avoidance of tax. But let's concentrate on what you call 'tax avoidance'. Are you really saying that all tax avoidance schemes should be banned? What about ISAs or Pensions? Or are you only saying tax avoidance schemes that you don't participate in? 

I agree that the tax rules are too complex but what is a fairer tax? I agree that if you earn more you should pay more but a simple flat percentage rate gives you that. Is it fair that some people pay no tax because they earn below the tax free allowance, some pay 20% and some pay 45%? Would a flat rate 20% be 'fairer'? 

Then you mention "There should be no 'loopholes' (e.g. individuals being paid as a company to pay a lower corporation tax)". How do you differentiate between those genuine 'sole trader' type of companies, of which many on PW would fall under, and ones that you believe are set up to avoid tax? Do you not believe that the use of such 'service companies' give some benefit to the employing company as well - they enable companies to pay for services without having to take on employees directly and the associated overheads that come with them? Yes there are some that take this to the extreme and some schemes are borderline but to be fair HMRC are pretty good at clamping down on the schemes that are set up just with the purpose of avoiding tax - K2 for example. 

Finally, do you think that if some people paid more tax then the tax burden on everybody else would reduce? Or would politicians squander it at the overall tax burden would continue to increase? 

Whilst your response has honourable intent it is just naive to think that these challenges can be easily solved.   

   

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

[Scully]

Morally wrong but totally legal.

I have a mate who is a very successful builder; he says he pays very little tax and this is how he does it.

I don’t know of anyone who wouldn’t take advantage of schemes such as these if their accountants advised them to do so.

Jimmy Carr was at it as was Gary Barlow. The Rolling Stones and U2 have addresses for companies set up by them for such purposes on the continent.

If people don’t approve then possibly Mrs Browns Boys ratings will slump as people stop watching, and no one will pay to watch rock bands known to do this.......but I doubt it.

[evolution380]

I genuinely have less of a problem with those legally undertaking tax avoidance than I do people who are too lazy to work and just hold their hand out.

If i was in the same position I would. Infact I avoid tax legally where I can in the form of a stocks and share isa and any work bonuses going directly to my private pension scheme to avoid tax.

It's not even a drop in the ocean obviously but am I anymore Immoral than the super rich for trying to avoid Capital Gains and Income Tax where I can?

 

 

 

 

 

[krugerandsmith]

3 hours ago, AVB said:

It's a non-story to anybody but the rabid left. 

My previous employer was 'exposed' by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and the Guardian in 2013 using data that they had 'acquired'. Through detailed, and expensive,  forensic analysis of the data they had we narrowed it down to being from a period August-September 2007 i.e 6 years old. But of course they didn't mention that in the exposé did they? No it was just sensationalism - fat Italian opera singer has bank account in Jersey. Shock horror.

I was reviewing my pension the other day and became aware that two of the funds I have invested in are domiciled in Ireland (offshore), one in Luxembourg (offshore) one in Cayman (offshore) and one in Jersey (offshore).

Krugerandsmith - Take a few more tablets and tell me what I have done wrong?   

 You have done nothing wrong but ...... When you come to retire ( God willing ) don't be shocked at the amount of tax your hit with.

    

 

 

[AVB]

24 minutes ago, krugerandsmith said:

You have done nothing wrong but ...... When you come to retire ( God willing ) don't be shocked at the amount of tax your hit with.

Like everyone else I will take 25% tax free and the rest I will draw down and pay tax on depending my income for the year. My point is some of it is invested in 'offshore' domiciled funds, as is The Queens. Why the fuss?    

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, AVB said:

You raise some interesting points that are worthy of debate. 

Firstly lets break the link between offshore and tax avoidance. Not everything invested offshore - I quoted some of my pension funds for example - is related to the avoidance of tax. But let's concentrate on what you call 'tax avoidance'. Are you really saying that all tax avoidance schemes should be banned? What about ISAs or Pensions? Or are you only saying tax avoidance schemes that you don't participate in? 

I agree that the tax rules are too complex but what is a fairer tax? I agree that if you earn more you should pay more but a simple flat percentage rate gives you that. Is it fair that some people pay no tax because they earn below the tax free allowance, some pay 20% and some pay 45%? Would a flat rate 20% be 'fairer'? 

Then you mention "There should be no 'loopholes' (e.g. individuals being paid as a company to pay a lower corporation tax)". How do you differentiate between those genuine 'sole trader' type of companies, of which many on PW would fall under, and ones that you believe are set up to avoid tax? Do you not believe that the use of such 'service companies' give some benefit to the employing company as well - they enable companies to pay for services without having to take on employees directly and the associated overheads that come with them? Yes there are some that take this to the extreme and some schemes are borderline but to be fair HMRC are pretty good at clamping down on the schemes that are set up just with the purpose of avoiding tax - K2 for example. 

Finally, do you think that if some people paid more tax then the tax burden on everybody else would reduce? Or would politicians squander it at the overall tax burden would continue to increase? 

Whilst your response has honourable intent it is just naive to think that these challenges can be easily solved.     

I'll give my views on your points above as best I can;

Firstly things like ISA, Pension contribution relief, personal allowances etc. are 'allowances' available to all, and not (in my view) 'avoidance'.  I have done both ISA and previously PEP and claimed pension tax relief - just as I have used my personal allowances.  What I regard as 'avoidance' are those schemes deliberately designed to exploit loopholes.  These are not the sort of thing that (I assume) most or any here would come across, but 'deals' done where very wealthy people pay very little tax by being 'Non Dom' despite clearly living and working here much of the time.

I think the present income tax system of an allowance then a 'basic' rate and a 'higher rate' are fine - its just that some people manage to have 'little income' despite clearly receiving a lot of money.

I agree that the issue of 'company' versus 'employee' is difficult.  Under a fairer system, ideally there should be no either big advantage of one route, or disadvantage of the other.  I agree it is hard to define and hard to police.  I know HMRC are having some success in clamping down on these, but I understand there is still a lot both avoided and evaded.

I did hear that the present estimated 'avoidance' figure was HUGE, but can't remember the figure, but it was several billions, not just a few millions.  I don't think if this was collected better that there would be a reduction to overall tax ........ what I would like to see is a decent and lasting reduction in the deficit and overall debt burden.  I heard today that the interest on our borrowings is now larger than the defence budget!  That cannot be sensible.

Overall, I don't blame anyone for using the legal loopholes, or poorly drafted legislation to optimise their tax position - what I believe is that there are quite large avoidance opportunities presently there that should be closed off.  I do completely agree it isn't easy to solve at the stroke of a pen.

Quote

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by JohnfromUK

[panoma1]

Is it not true that if the rich and powerful save £ millions by "avoiding" paying tax......then in order to finance the UK's NHS, schools, social care, benefits, local government etc, etc.............those ordinary mortals that do not and/or can not avoid paying tax, end up having to pay more tax in order to make up the shortfall?

People argue tax avoidance it's open to all.....I don't think the so called tax havens would be interested in my 5 bob a week savings! Would they?

There may not be a legal issue here, but there sure as hell is a significant moral one!

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Is it not true that if the rich and powerful save £ millions by "avoiding" paying tax......then in order to finance the UK's NHS, schools, social care, benefits, local government etc, etc.............those ordinary mortals that do not and/or can not avoid paying tax, end up having to pay more tax in order to make up the shortfall?

People argue tax avoidance it's open to all.....I don't think the so called tax havens would be interested in my 5 bob a week savings! Would they?

There may not be a legal issue here, but there sure as hell is a significant moral one!

I agree - and the legal side should be changed to better reflect the moral position ......... but I agree with AVB that this is not easy to do.

[AVB]

5 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Is it not true that if the rich and powerful save £ millions by "avoiding" paying tax......then in order to finance the UK's NHS, schools, social care, benefits, local government etc, etc.............those ordinary mortals that do not and/or can not avoid paying tax, end up having to pay more tax in order to make up the shortfall?

People argue tax avoidance it's open to all.....I don't think the so called tax havens would be interested in my 5 bob a week savings! Would they?

There may not be a legal issue here, but there sure as hell is a significant moral one!

Somebody one said, and I can't remember who, that nobody has any moral obligation to pay tax, only a legal one. I agree. If anybody wants to pay more because they have high moral values then feel free. 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, AVB said:

Somebody one said, and I can't remember who, that nobody has any moral obligation to pay tax, only a legal one. I agree. If anybody wants to pay more because they have high moral values then feel free. 

My point here is that the legal position and the moral position should align under a fair system.  If most people believe that the moral position is not reflected in the legal position, then surely the legal position needs looking at?  There will be little respect for the law if people believe the law is morally wrong.

[ferguson_tom]

Moral obligation, are you lot being serious? Sorry but all you Noble warriors on your white steeds are nothing more than jealous of the rich. No one feels a moral obligation to pay tax and its quite simple the more you earn the more the government try to shaft you every which way they can.

Honestly if i was a millionaire i would be doing exactly the same thing. I would have no problem sleeping at night and if i did i would just have to drive 10 minutes down the road to the council estate to see how well my money is being spent because its so moral for people not to work and live off the state!

[Jaymo]

Is it not better to maintain these schemes and at least receive some taxation, rather than force people to then Domicile themselves elsewhere.

20% of something is better than 100% of nothing

[Jaymo]

Ferguson Tom, your on the money there.