Panorama and Tax avoidance

[Yellow Bear]

1 hour ago, pinfireman said:

Jeremy,s gang want to tax them until they squeal.....  

Jeremy;s gang will Tax all workers with more than living wage until they squeal; unless they belong to a powerful left leaning union that supports him.

[Scully]

J Vine show will be discussing that if it’s ok to do this, why can’t the average income maker do it and what the implications would be if everyone did so. 

[JohnfromUK]

Two very relevant points have been made through this thread;

1. There have been several people saying that much of the bad feeling about paying tax comes from how badly, inefficiently and wastefully it is spent - the view is that if government spending departments spent the takings much more wisely and better targeted, then they would feel less aggrieved by having to pay the tax.
2. Secondly - it was raised that Mrs Thatcher got tax much (well quite a bit) lower and as a result there was less avoidance & evasion of the lower taxes

I agree with both of the above points.

IF we end up - as seems quite likely - with a Corbin government, with MacDonald as Chancellor, Abbott as Home Secretary and Thornberry as Foreign Secretary etc., then we will have MUCH higher taxes - especially on the higher earners - and MUCH higher spending - and I believe even more wasteful spending.

This will result in even more widespread avoidance/evasion - even if the wealthy have to move overseas.  This is what happened in the 1960s/70's - the top rate of tax (applicable to people earning the equivalent today of over £100,000) was 97.5% in the 1950s and 60's falling to 75% in 1971 (still 90% on investment income) then up to 83% (98% on investments) in 1974.  Many of the best brains and entrepreneurs left the UK.

Mrs Thatcher reduced the top rate to 60% in 1979 when she was elected and to 40% in 1988.  Avoidance/evasion was said to have been substantially reduced.

Edited November 7, 2017 by JohnfromUK

[neutron619]

Tax is a moral issue... blah blah... tax avoidance is immoral... blah blah...

It's simple: if the government want to take more tax, they need to pass the laws which allow for this to occur.

If you think the government haven't written sufficiently watertight law to make the legal case for taxation align with your moral views, elect a better government.

Beyond that, live with it.

That said, tax is a moral issue, certainly.

That governments are allowed to steal, under threat of imprisonment or other punishment, their subjects' hard-earned wealth is certainly a moral question.

That they are allowed to fritter away that money on projects of little to no value to the people who are forced to pay for them is a moral question.

That it has been proven, over and over again, that the £1 taken by goverment is worth only a number of pence when spent on behalf of the taxed is a moral question.

There are of course good and positive arguments in favour of taxation and the social benefits it can bring. But those positive effects need to be achieved legally and with a mind on the inherent wastefulness of money spent "for the benefit of" rather than "by". The government cannot understand individual needs better than the individual and the sacrifice of the individual's ability to cater, with their own means, to those needs should be recognized.

If people want to choose to pay more tax of thier own volition then I am all in favour. However, the idea that we should be forced to pay more than the law requires takes us down several very dangerous paths, including:

• inequality of citizens under the same law (which is a short distance away from "black people should pay more tax than white people")
• the payment of taxes calculated arbitarily (contravenes Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and is certainly immoral)
• brings the law iself into disrepute (Tax Man: "I have decided that I will ignore this law and threaten you with imprisonment if you do not pay more tax..." / Taxed: "Agreed - but I give you notice that I have decided to ignore the legal prohibition on homicide...")
• implies that the duty of the citizen is to serve the state, when in fact, the very opposite should - and thankfully generally is, in this country - be true (Willing Taxpayer: "I support the benificence of the state machinery by willingly submitting my means to its ends and believe that you should too.")

and so on.

I'm sorry to make the point so vehemently (as I hope I have) but respect for the law and the subjugation of the state to the demos are paramount if a society is to be called "free". I'll leave you with Lord Clyde, 1929:

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

Edited November 7, 2017 by neutron619
Spelling.

[JohnfromUK]

20 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

If you think the government haven't written sufficiently watertight law to make the legal case for taxation align with your moral views, elect a better government.

 

I would LOVE to elect a better government; all I have been offered (with a realistic chance of actually getting into office) is 'poor' and 'even poorer'

Otherwise I do agree with what you say.  Watertight tax laws are not easy to write.

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, Yellow Bear said:

Jeremy;s gang will Tax all workers with more than living wage until they squeal; unless they belong to a powerful left leaning union that supports him.

Very true!

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

J Vine show will be discussing that if it’s ok to do this, why can’t the average income maker do it and what the implications would be if everyone did so. 

and we all know what  Vine is, and which way he leans, politically and  with Brexit!  These days I never turn on the BBC,  TV or radio.  It,s all garbage!

[islandgun]

Its impossible to avoid tax, we pay tax one way or another for everything we buy, rich man poor man alike,  tax is paid on the raw material, on transportation, on every single thing, we use or consume and in every conceivable way, all the ###g time..

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

Two very relevant points have been made through this thread;

1. There have been several people saying that much of the bad feeling about paying tax comes from how badly, inefficiently and wastefully it is spent - the view is that if government spending departments spent the takings much more wisely and better targeted, then they would feel less aggrieved by having to pay the tax.
2. Secondly - it was raised that Mrs Thatcher got tax much (well quite a bit) lower and as a result there was less avoidance & evasion of the lower taxes

I agree with both of the above points.

IF we end up - as seems quite likely - with a Corbin government, with MacDonald as Chancellor, Abbott as Home Secretary and Thornberry as Foreign Secretary etc., then we will have MUCH higher taxes - especially on the higher earners - and MUCH higher spending - and I believe even more wasteful spending.

This will result in even more widespread avoidance/evasion - even if the wealthy have to move overseas.  This is what happened in the 1960s/70's - the top rate of tax (applicable to people earning the equivalent today of over £100,000) was 97.5% in the 1950s and 60's falling to 75% in 1971 (still 90% on investment income) then up to 83% (98% on investments) in 1974.  Many of the best brains and entrepreneurs left the UK.

Mrs Thatcher reduced the top rate to 60% in 1979 when she was elected and to 40% in 1988.  Avoidance/evasion was said to have been substantially reduced.

Correct! During that period of heavy taxation, some of our best talent, and  huge amounts of investment left Britain.....and did not return! ALL countries with punitive taxation regimes are basket case economies within a few years!

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, neutron619 said:

Tax is a moral issue... blah blah... tax avoidance is immoral... blah blah...

It's simple: if the government want to take more tax, they need to pass the laws which allow for this to occur.

If you think the government haven't written sufficiently watertight law to make the legal case for taxation align with your moral views, elect a better government.

Beyond that, live with it.

That said, tax is a moral issue, certainly.

That governments are allowed to steal, under threat of imprisonment or other punishment, their subjects' hard-earned wealth is certainly a moral question.

That they are allowed to fritter away that money on projects of little to no value to the people who are forced to pay for them is a moral question.

That it has been proven, over and over again, that the £1 taken by goverment is worth only a number of pence when spent on behalf of the taxed is a moral question.

There are of course good and positive arguments in favour of taxation and the social benefits it can bring. But those positive effects need to be achieved legally and with a mind on the inherent wastefulness of money spent "for the benefit of" rather than "by". The government cannot understand individual needs better than the individual and the sacrifice of the individual's ability to cater, with their own means, to those needs should be recognized.

If people want to choose to pay more tax of thier own volition then I am all in favour. However, the idea that we should be forced to pay more than the law requires takes us down several very dangerous paths, including:

• inequality of citizens under the same law (which is a short distance away from "black people should pay more tax than white people")
• the payment of taxes calculated arbitarily (contravenes Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and is certainly immoral)
• brings the law iself into disrepute (Tax Man: "I have decided that I will ignore this law and threaten you with imprisonment if you do not pay more tax..." / Taxed: "Agreed - but I give you notice that I have decided to ignore the legal prohibition on homicide...")
• implies that the duty of the citizen is to serve the state, when in fact, the very opposite should - and thankfully generally is, in this country - be true (Willing Taxpayer: "I support the benificence of the state machinery by willingly submitting my means to its ends and believe that you should too.")

and so on.

I'm sorry to make the point so vehemently (as I hope I have) but respect for the law and the subjugation of the state to the demos are paramount if a society is to be called "free". I'll leave you with Lord Clyde, 1929:

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

Great post!

[Scully]

2 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

and we all know what  Vine is, and which way he leans, politically and  with Brexit!  These days I never turn on the BBC,  TV or radio.  It,s all garbage!

Yes, we do, but I thought people may want to listen as it’s relevant to the thread. 

You cant dispute garbage if you make yourself unaware of it; and if you don’t dispute it people only hear one side of a story. 

[pinfireman]

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

Yes, we do, but I thought people may want to listen as it’s relevant to the thread. 

You cant dispute garbage if you make yourself unaware of it; and if you don’t dispute it people only hear one side of a story. 

But constantly banging your head against a brick wall only gives you.......a headache!

[Scully]

22 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

But constantly banging your head against a brick wall only gives you.......a headache!

No .....it doesn’t. You simply have to let the garbage spouter know that you know they are talking garbage, but we’re getting off topic. 

[Mungler]

Anyone seen this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11189430/Tony-Benns-inheritance-tax-dodge-how-it-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-too.html

Made me chuckle

[Hamster]

4 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Evade" and "Avoid" are NOT the same thing.....get the Oxford Dictionary if in doubt! Unless, of course, if you come from a Left political  view, where all lines can be blurred to suit the narrative?

Oh yes they do, it's like the difference between legal and illegal regime change  both meaning war and conflict because might is greater than right, don't need a dictionary to know when words are being used to shaft the ordinary tax payer. 

If systems are put in place to legally allow the super rich to "avoid" paying their taxes like everyone else then it is evasion, the only point of legality being that it is approved by the government..................which I did say were also corrupt and in on the scam. Words mean nothing, the net effect is what's at stake. 

Make no mistake people, the day will come when ordinary people will have had enough of all this bull. 

ps. I am no lefty, righty or centrey. 

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Anyone seen this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11189430/Tony-Benns-inheritance-tax-dodge-how-it-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-too.html

Made me chuckle

Tony Benn's wife was American, and I was told (on very good authority) a significant part of their wealth (from her side of the family) was kept 'offshore' in her family (I presume in trust) in American territory, possibly Hawaii?  She was from a 'privileged' background, he father being a successful lawyer.

Tony Benn made out he was a true good 'man of the people', but in reality he was from a very privileged background (born the Horourable Anthony Wedgewood Benn) and the son of Viscount Stansgate, a title he inherited but renounced to continue to sit in the House of Commons (where Peers can't sit).  There is a significant family estate (Stansgate House and Stansgate Abbey Farm estate) in Essex as well as his London house.  The Essex Estate is held in trust for his family.  He is thought to have been worth about £5M at the time of his death.  He was firmly in the 'do as I say' not 'do as I am' camp.

See also this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2816554/Benn-s-legacy-hypocrisy-week-revealed-arch-socialist-left-5m-children-none-good-causes-s-just-start-breathtaking-story-riches-tax-avoidance-double-standards.html

[pinfireman]

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

Oh yes they do, it's like the difference between legal and illegal regime change  both meaning war and conflict because might is greater than right, don't need a dictionary to know when words are being used to shaft the ordinary tax payer. 

If systems are put in place to legally allow the super rich to "avoid" paying their taxes like everyone else then it is evasion, the only point of legality being that it is approved by the government..................which I did say were also corrupt and in on the scam. Words mean nothing, the net effect is what's at stake. 

Make no mistake people, the day will come when ordinary people will have had enough of all this bull. 

ps. I am no lefty, righty or centrey. 

Yes, you do need a dictionary... and when will that day come?? When Corbyn comes tp power? 

2 hours ago, Scully said:

No .....it doesn’t. You simply have to let the garbage spouter know that you know they are talking garbage, but we’re getting off topic. 

Having done that, what,s the point in continuing to do it?

[Scully]

1 hour ago, pinfireman said:

 

Having done that, what,s the point in continuing to do it?

Well I’m assuming it’s done in response to different topics of garbage, or regarding the same topic if the  offender persists. 

The easy option is to give up. 

[pinfireman]

6 hours ago, Scully said:

Well I’m assuming it’s done in response to different topics of garbage, or regarding the same topic if the  offender persists. 

The easy option is to give up. 

I fought to get out of the EU for 25 years.....I don,t give up easily, but with some things, there comes a time to just  ignore them.....they are never going to change....

[Mungler]

19 hours ago, neutron619 said:

Tax is a moral issue... blah blah... tax avoidance is immoral... blah blah...

It's simple: if the government want to take more tax, they need to pass the laws which allow for this to occur.

If you think the government haven't written sufficiently watertight law to make the legal case for taxation align with your moral views, elect a better government.

Beyond that, live with it.

That said, tax is a moral issue, certainly.

That governments are allowed to steal, under threat of imprisonment or other punishment, their subjects' hard-earned wealth is certainly a moral question.

That they are allowed to fritter away that money on projects of little to no value to the people who are forced to pay for them is a moral question.

That it has been proven, over and over again, that the £1 taken by goverment is worth only a number of pence when spent on behalf of the taxed is a moral question.

There are of course good and positive arguments in favour of taxation and the social benefits it can bring. But those positive effects need to be achieved legally and with a mind on the inherent wastefulness of money spent "for the benefit of" rather than "by". The government cannot understand individual needs better than the individual and the sacrifice of the individual's ability to cater, with their own means, to those needs should be recognized.

If people want to choose to pay more tax of thier own volition then I am all in favour. However, the idea that we should be forced to pay more than the law requires takes us down several very dangerous paths, including:

• inequality of citizens under the same law (which is a short distance away from "black people should pay more tax than white people")
• the payment of taxes calculated arbitarily (contravenes Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and is certainly immoral)
• brings the law iself into disrepute (Tax Man: "I have decided that I will ignore this law and threaten you with imprisonment if you do not pay more tax..." / Taxed: "Agreed - but I give you notice that I have decided to ignore the legal prohibition on homicide...")
• implies that the duty of the citizen is to serve the state, when in fact, the very opposite should - and thankfully generally is, in this country - be true (Willing Taxpayer: "I support the benificence of the state machinery by willingly submitting my means to its ends and believe that you should too.")

and so on.

I'm sorry to make the point so vehemently (as I hope I have) but respect for the law and the subjugation of the state to the demos are paramount if a society is to be called "free". I'll leave you with Lord Clyde, 1929:

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

 

Great post ?

[Scully]

8 hours ago, pinfireman said:

I fought to get out of the EU for 25 years.....I don,t give up easily, but with some things, there comes a time to just  ignore them.....they are never going to change....

Ah well. As long as you’re happy. 

20 hours ago, neutron619 said:

Tax is a moral issue... blah blah... tax avoidance is immoral... blah blah...

It's simple: if the government want to take more tax, they need to pass the laws which allow for this to occur.

If you think the government haven't written sufficiently watertight law to make the legal case for taxation align with your moral views, elect a better government.

Beyond that, live with it.

That said, tax is a moral issue, certainly.

That governments are allowed to steal, under threat of imprisonment or other punishment, their subjects' hard-earned wealth is certainly a moral question.

That they are allowed to fritter away that money on projects of little to no value to the people who are forced to pay for them is a moral question.

That it has been proven, over and over again, that the £1 taken by goverment is worth only a number of pence when spent on behalf of the taxed is a moral question.

There are of course good and positive arguments in favour of taxation and the social benefits it can bring. But those positive effects need to be achieved legally and with a mind on the inherent wastefulness of money spent "for the benefit of" rather than "by". The government cannot understand individual needs better than the individual and the sacrifice of the individual's ability to cater, with their own means, to those needs should be recognized.

If people want to choose to pay more tax of thier own volition then I am all in favour. However, the idea that we should be forced to pay more than the law requires takes us down several very dangerous paths, including:

• inequality of citizens under the same law (which is a short distance away from "black people should pay more tax than white people")
• the payment of taxes calculated arbitarily (contravenes Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and is certainly immoral)
• brings the law iself into disrepute (Tax Man: "I have decided that I will ignore this law and threaten you with imprisonment if you do not pay more tax..." / Taxed: "Agreed - but I give you notice that I have decided to ignore the legal prohibition on homicide...")
• implies that the duty of the citizen is to serve the state, when in fact, the very opposite should - and thankfully generally is, in this country - be true (Willing Taxpayer: "I support the benificence of the state machinery by willingly submitting my means to its ends and believe that you should too.")

and so on.

I'm sorry to make the point so vehemently (as I hope I have) but respect for the law and the subjugation of the state to the demos are paramount if a society is to be called "free". I'll leave you with Lord Clyde, 1929:

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

Good post; that’ll do for me. ?

[pinfireman]

Always happy....

[Scully]

Sorted. ?

[norfolk dumpling]

I cannot for the life of understand why so much effort has been expended on this when virtually everyone in the UK is benefitting from 'Offshore' financing. Ok there are a very very small number of scams uncovered but virtually every pension fund benefits including the BBC and who doesn't watch that paragon of virtue??? The UK is a huge offshore haven for Arab and Russia interest and will be more so when Brexit is completed. The hypocrisy of the likes of Jeremy C beggars belief when a number of Labour controlled councils are using offshore companies to buy £ms of property and avoiding tax. Why shouldn't the royal family manage their funds prudently? Let's all move onto some important stuff like the rising price of ammo!

[12gauge82]

Well, I don't think I've ever read a thread with so many hypothetical story's, with so many vivid and wonderful tails ?

 

I think the thing that really gets people's backs up is the hypocrisy of the government and those with power suggesting that the masses should do the right thing, ie go to work, pay there taxes ect, while they quietly live by a separate set of rules which are either not available or not effective for the masses. Theres nothing like a sense of unfairness and double standards to get people worked up.