Join the Labour Party and save your country!

pblakeney

He, as far as I can see, is putting into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.
That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given my point above about how offshore funds work from a tax perspective, I'd also like mamba to tell us whether he has any money invested in a pension fund

Serious question. Are you really an accountant?

If you were, you'd know the difference between what Parliament intended ie normal working people to invest in a Pension and what Parliament never intended ie secretive off shore investments (with v large set up fees which puts them beyond the reach of normal people) of which no one knows anything about........

orraloon

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given my point above about how offshore funds work from a tax perspective, I'd also like mamba to tell us whether he has any money invested in a pension fund

Diversion alert!

Staying with the subject off offshore funds, why go to the bother of setting up legal entities in potentially less stable riskier parts of the world, if same benefits could be wrought keeping one's ackers in the UK?

'Cos want to keep one's ackers out of the mitts of the taxman, hide them away.

Legal, yip. Morally questionable, yip. Especially if one puts oneself forward as a member of the government. Looking at you again Ashcroft.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given my point above about how offshore funds work from a tax perspective, I'd also like mamba to tell us whether he has any money invested in a pension fund

Diversion alert!

Staying with the subject off offshore funds, why go to the bother of setting up legal entities in potentially less stable riskier parts of the world, if same benefits could be wrought keeping one's ackers in the UK?

'Cos want to keep one's ackers out of the mitts of the taxman, hide them away.

Legal, yip. Morally questionable, yip. Especially if one puts oneself forward as a member of the government. Looking at you again Ashcroft.

No diversion.

My point is that the end effect in tax terms of the structure you described is exactly the same as investing in a pension scheme. So, anyone who is on this thread moaning about the legitimate use of offshore structures (such as that used by Cameron) who also has a pension plan is a hypocrite.

It does not require offshore structures to evade tax - although clearly they can and are used by some to do this. You simply do not tell the taxman about a source of income. The old adage of the builder who does a cash job and knocks off the VAT is still tax evasion.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given my point above about how offshore funds work from a tax perspective, I'd also like mamba to tell us whether he has any money invested in a pension fund

Serious question. Are you really an accountant?

If you were, you'd know the difference between what Parliament intended ie normal working people to invest in a Pension and what Parliament never intended ie secretive off shore investments (with v large set up fees which puts them beyond the reach of normal people) of which no one knows anything about........

I am.

But I also understand and am trying to point out that the end tax effect is the same. Which brings me back to the point that a lot of this is simply driven by who is using offshore structures, rather than the end effect. The green eyed monster again...

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

He, as far as I can see, is putting into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.
That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong.

If the end tax effect of a legitimate offshore scheme is the same as investing in a pension scheme, how is that wrong?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given my point above about how offshore funds work from a tax perspective, I'd also like mamba to tell us whether he has any money invested in a pension fund .

i ve a salary, a house and some savings which give me an income... thats it.....

I know you will have a pension scheme. Tax avoider! Burn him!

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

maybe somebody could explain why you would offshore money if there is no tax benefit - this is a genuine question as it might make the general public less sceptical

If you're fighting a corrupt regime it can be useful to be able to squirrel some money away in secret.

Think of it as what's app encryption for your money

The fact that tax is not levied at the level of the trust/investment vehicle mens thst over time it will grow at a faster rate and provide better returns.

Ultimately as Bally says, the tax is paid when returns are made to the investors.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

He, as far as I can see, is putting into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.
That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong.

If the end tax effect of a legitimate offshore scheme is the same as investing in a pension scheme, how is that wrong?

Ask the hypocrite David Cameron. Those are his words.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

He, as far as I can see, is putting into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.
That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong.

If the end tax effect of a legitimate offshore scheme is the same as investing in a pension scheme, how is that wrong?

Ask the hypocrite David Cameron. Those are his words.

I'm asking the hypocrites on this thread

iPete

The difference is that a pension is very easily accessible to all, the feeling is that if I was mega rich I'd be using offshore mechanisms to greatly reduce what the suckers on PAYE contribute. There may or not be any truth in that.

The question is then, should we all club together like Crickhowell? Can I come off payroll and offshore myself? It is from the sounds of it legal after all.

orraloon

Nice tactic Taxavoider666 to keep throwing pension schemes into the mix, as if that is in any way relevant to (not) answering the Why Bother? question about offshore funds, if its all the same anyway?

orraloon wrote:

Staying with the subject off offshore funds, why go to the bother of setting up legal entities in potentially less stable riskier parts of the world, if same benefits could be wrought keeping one's ackers in the UK?

Well, any suggestions?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

He, as far as I can see, is putting into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.
That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong.

If the end tax effect of a legitimate offshore scheme is the same as investing in a pension scheme, how is that wrong?

Ask the hypocrite David Cameron. Those are his words.

I'm asking the hypocrites on this thread

as i ve said to you before, it comes down to what Parliament intended... Pension schemes are available for the lowest paid up to the super rich, there is no secrecy and its for all to see, so, no one is having ago at DC about his Parliamentary pension are they?
you are only bring Pensions up because you an bally are losing the argument and you dont like it that a thread started to poke fun at Labour is back firing on you.

You appear to making out that off-shore is as benign as sticking your money in the local Pru... if so why did DC go off shore for such a (for him) small amount? keeping quiet about it and selling as soon as he thought the spot light might be shone in his direction back in 2010?
He is either a fool or has something he is embarrassed about.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Nice tactic Taxavoider666 to keep throwing pension schemes into the mix, as if that is in any way relevant to (not) answering the Why Bother? question about offshore funds, if its all the same anyway?

orraloon wrote:

Staying with the subject off offshore funds, why go to the bother of setting up legal entities in potentially less stable riskier parts of the world, if same benefits could be wrought keeping one's ackers in the UK?

Well, any suggestions?

Pensions tax treatment is very relevant because the treatment is very similar to that of an offshore fund. So either both are OK or both are not OK. Which is it?

There are several possible reasons why this is preferred over pensions, for sensible commercial and financial reasons:
1. The money is not tied up until retirement and investors choose when to sell/cash in.
2. Funds of this type have more flexibility in terms what they invest in. While the offshore public funds will likely offer a 'take it or leave it' approach for investors, there are also private funds available where people effectively club together to invest in things that are of mutual interest - i.e. they have a direct and often specific say in where the funds go.
3. It allows greater investing power and spreading of risk. Investors can combine their funds with others to be able to invest in things that may not be possible individually. Also a way of spreading risk, if say you want to invest in something but do not want to put all of your eggs in one basket.
4. Frequently this type of more tailored approach allows investor to choose the degree of risk and reward they are prepared to take.

There may be others depending on circumstances.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

He, as far as I can see, is putting into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.
That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong.

If the end tax effect of a legitimate offshore scheme is the same as investing in a pension scheme, how is that wrong?

Ask the hypocrite David Cameron. Those are his words.

I'm asking the hypocrites on this thread

as i ve said to you before, it comes down to what Parliament intended... Pension schemes are available for the lowest paid up to the super rich, there is no secrecy and its for all to see, so, no one is having ago at DC about his Parliamentary pension are they?
you are only bring Pensions up because you an bally are losing the argument and you dont like it that a thread started to poke fun at Labour is back firing on you.

You appear to making out that off-shore is as benign as sticking your money in the local Pru... if so why did DC go off shore for such a (for him) small amount? keeping quiet about it and selling as soon as he thought the spot light might be shone in his direction back in 2010?
He is either a fool or has something he is embarrassed about.

Just because parliament intends or wants something to happen such as pension saving does not make it necessarily better than other legitimate means of investment. Particularly as I have already explained the tax consequences are very similar. You could even argue that pension tax treatment is better because of the deduction from income as an expense.

Your point about the small amount invested by DC is also interesting because it shows that these types of investments are not just for the very wealthy, as some on here claim.

And why do I think DC kept quiet about his Panama investment? Probably because there are boat loads of ill informed do gooders and lefties who assume he has done something wrong when in fact he hasn't. His only crime is bad PR. This thread shows once again that when it comes to tax, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

As said in my reply to Orraloon above, pensions tax treatment is very relevant because the treatment is very similar to that of an offshore fund. So either both are OK or both are not OK. Which is it? Also have a look at the commercial reasons why people would invest in funds like this: when added to the pension type tax treatment, it is a good reason to invest in that way if it suits your circumstances.

orraloon

Obfuscator666, why offshore? And why the secrecy? Something to hide or not?

Or is simply rich UK bods don't want to play by the UK tax rules but prefer to stick their money in some banana republic which won't deduct as much, if any? Mind you, said rich UK bods are perfectly happy to use UK actual taxpayer funded roads, police, health, defence, whatever.

You know, I think I might be able to guess the answer...


[Edit: nice one BR, auto linking to some outfit called Banana Republic. Hi, I am orraloon and I do not endorse that link]

Stevo_666

Leftieloon wrote:

Obfuscator666, why offshore? And why the secrecy? Something to hide or not?

Or is simply rich UK bods don't want to play by the UK tax rules but prefer to stick their money in some banana republic which won't deduct as much, if any? Mind you, said rich UK bods are perfectly happy to use UK actual taxpayer funded roads, police, health, defence, whatever.

You know, I think I might be able to guess the answer...


[Edit: nice one BR, auto linking to some outfit called Banana Republic. Hi, I am orraloon and I do not endorse that link]

How many time do I need to explain this? :roll:

So, once again for the hard of thinking...the fund itself is not taxed because it is in a country that doesn't tax it. Over time, the compound effect of the lack of tax on the fund increases the value of the fund leading to superior returns. The tax on the investor comes when the investors received dividend or sell their investment.

As mentioned before, this is just like a UK pension fund which is not taxed: the tax comes when the person receives their pension/annuity/lump sum etc. Both defer the taxation until a later date: both are legitimate. Some people are not honest and choose not to declare their income - but as explained that is possible with nearly any form of income in any place. The confidentiality rules can be abused certainly. See back to my links on tax information exchange agreements on how this is dealt with.

See also my earlier links on how much tax is paid by the upper income brackets. Facts can often be useful in an argument rather just indignant jealousy.

This also proves that offshore investments are not for you, as the first rule of investing is don't invest in something you don't understand

mamba80

But by fortunate good timing DC cashed his investment in before profits took it above capitol gains yes?

If as you say he was embarrassed by having an off-shore fund, why did he have one ???? for 12k !!! is he an idiot? i believe DC judgement is fundamentally flawed, he is greedy and lives for the now and this builds my case, his decision over calling the EU vote is another example of short term thinking, what a waste of public time and money.

the really prob DC has and he has just admitted it, is he screwed up, with a series of disingenuous statements,
he publicly criticized Jimmy Carr calling it "Morally Wrong" (who also did nothing illegal either) and then in the eyes of the public has done the same, ok it isnt the same but he has left the impression he is trying to avoid tax, his profit on one very small investment, is not far short of the avg take home pay of a uk worker for the year and unlike the UK worker, DC has paid no tax on it!

He plays the im one of you card but with a personal fortune of £30 million, he clearly isnt, thats not his fault but stop trying to be the guy next door and get on with running the country.

surrey_commuter

orraloon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

maybe somebody could explain why you would offshore money if there is no tax benefit - this is a genuine question as it might make the general public less sceptical

Put your entity under the jurisdiction of a country or territory which has a low or zero rate of company tax. Say Panama for a topical example, though I'm sure our resident tax expert will be along shortly to clarify if I get things wrong. And better still choose one which has no disclosure arrangements.

Company, or fund keeping it topical, profits are not subject to deduction of corporate tax, so clear benefit there.

Keep your dosh in low or no tax states. Witness Apple and other mega USanian corporates keeping their massive piles of cash outside the relatively high tax US.

Your cash is only subject to UK or US or wherever corporate taxes when it is moved back onshore. And individual owners / shareholders of such funds / companies are only subject to income tax when they actually take an income, or CGT on sale of asset.

Everyone's a winner, except HMRC, IRS, etc etc.

But I specifically asked what are the non-tax benefits.

mamba80

Astonishing...... and before the very latest on DC and tax havens....

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... tition-row

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

But by fortunate good timing DC cashed his investment in before profits took it above capitol gains yes?

If as you say he was embarrassed by having an off-shore fund, why did he have one ???? for 12k !!! is he an idiot? i believe DC judgement is fundamentally flawed, he is greedy and lives for the now and this builds my case, his decision over calling the EU vote is another example of short term thinking, what a waste of public time and money.

the really prob DC has and he has just admitted it, is he screwed up, with a series of disingenuous statements,
he publicly criticized Jimmy Carr calling it "Morally Wrong" (who also did nothing illegal either) and then in the eyes of the public has done the same, ok it isnt the same but he has left the impression he is trying to avoid tax, his profit on one very small investment, is not far short of the avg take home pay of a uk worker for the year and unlike the UK worker, DC has paid no tax on it!

He plays the im one of you card but with a personal fortune of £30 million, he clearly isnt, thats not his fault but stop trying to be the guy next door and get on with running the country.

You posted earlier that Stevo and I were losing the argument. I think not.
Initially people were screaming tax evasion, but closer scrutiny reveals no such thing. DC received dividends and paid the tax. His profit on the sale was insufficient to attract CGT.
You later claimed that he should have declared his interest but as I pointed out, he had no need to.
Now you seem to have accepted this and according to you is now only ' he has left the impression he is trying to avoid tax'.

Stevo makes his living out of knowing the UK tax system and still people can't grasp the reality of what DC has done after he explains it.

Finally, you have posted repeatedly about the referendum being too important to entrust to the people because they are incapable of grappling with the question. Based on some of the responses on here and elsewhere, to a more straight forward matter, I am slowly coming around to agreement with you on that.

mamba80

As pointed out in the express article, DC has lost the argument and imho so have you and steve0, hence nit picking and trying to move argument onto Pensions....

i m not a mind reader so i cannot say 100% that DC s intent was to reduce his tax bill, however, why did he sell on an investment that was clearly do very very well? some might say he sold to avoid CGT ? makes sense, the alternative argument is that he sold because he knew he was likely to become PM is less convincing, surely he d have sold once he became opp leader?

Your right though, i dont understand what DC has done, because if i was a multi millionaire (with a net worth of £30million) i would nt be pissing about with 12k in an off shore account, or worrying about a tiny amount of CGT, has nt he got better things to do?

End of the day, DC himself has said he screwed up, he will publish his tax returns and we ll all see what he does with his millions or will we????
i doubt this is going to be the end of the matter, if i were he, i'd get on on with EU vote and ignore demands for more disclosure, it ll only lead to more questions.......but DC aint no leader so he ll be a sheep and get led along.

ballysmate

The only argument Cameron has lost is public opinion. As has been stated earlier the mere mention of 'Tax haven' or 'offshore' is toxic.
Why did he sell? To avoid being liable for CGT you say. But during his ITV interview he said

"In all of this I've never hidden the fact that I'm a very lucky person who had wealthy parents, who gave me a great upbringing, who paid for me to go to an amazing school. I have never tried to pretend to be anything I am not.

"But I was keen in 2010 to sell everything - shares, all the rest of it - so I can be very transparent. I don't own any part of any company or any investment trust or anything else like that."

Note that he sold everything, not just his trusts.
Even if he did choose to sell at the optimum moment to save paying CGT, that is a legitimate reason to sell.

Like you, I do think this will drag on and on. Cameron may even produce his tax returns and show he is squeaky clean, but that will not satisfy the 'yes but, no but' mob who react like Pavlov's dogs at the word 'offshore'

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Astonishing...... and before the very latest on DC and tax havens....

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... tition-row

Perhaps you will get your wish to follow Corbyn into no man's land. Or if he does become PM, the wilderness, as the rest of the UK will know it.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

maybe somebody could explain why you would offshore money if there is no tax benefit - this is a genuine question as it might make the general public less sceptical

Put your entity under the jurisdiction of a country or territory which has a low or zero rate of company tax. Say Panama for a topical example, though I'm sure our resident tax expert will be along shortly to clarify if I get things wrong. And better still choose one which has no disclosure arrangements.

Company, or fund keeping it topical, profits are not subject to deduction of corporate tax, so clear benefit there.

Keep your dosh in low or no tax states. Witness Apple and other mega USanian corporates keeping their massive piles of cash outside the relatively high tax US.

Your cash is only subject to UK or US or wherever corporate taxes when it is moved back onshore. And individual owners / shareholders of such funds / companies are only subject to income tax when they actually take an income, or CGT on sale of asset.

Everyone's a winner, except HMRC, IRS, etc etc.

But I specifically asked what are the non-tax benefits.

SC, in a couple of my posts above I explain the non-tax benefits of these structures as I see them. Does that answer your question?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Astonishing...... and before the very latest on DC and tax havens....

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... tition-row

I suppose for anyone to be less popular than captian leftiebollox himself is not good news. However Corbyn will continue to be an unelectable scruffy Trot long after this media storm has died down

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Astonishing...... and before the very latest on DC and tax havens....

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... tition-row

Perhaps you will get your wish to follow Corbyn into no man's land. Or if he does become PM, the wilderness, as the rest of the UK will know it.

That made me think of Corbyns theme song
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=93rSXA8aeG4

Stevo_666

I see from the morning papers that DC has released his personal tax details. I shall await with interest the next round of postings fuelled by jealosy and ignorance of tax rules

Cracks knuckles...

ballysmate

Looking at the papers and particularly some of the comments, there does seem to be general ignorance. A lot of playing the man and not the ball going on.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Looking at the papers and particularly some of the comments, there does seem to be general ignorance. A lot of playing the man and not the ball going on.

You don't get it.

Once you are really rich, suddenly a whole bunch of tax advantages become available to you, meaning you can actually pay proportionally less tax than low earners.

Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant. People feel that the more you earn, the more you should pay; at least proportionally as much as others.

Tax havens aren't accessible to everyone in the same way ISAs or pensions are; they're only available to people who earn enough to pay for al the admin to go with it etc.

That's what irritates people. And from a gov't who's made such a song and dance about the parlous state of state finances, people are keen that everyone pays their fair share. That's why the Tories came up with the 'we're all in this together' slogan; because they know people will only be OK paying up for reduced services if everyone's doing the same. This illustrates to everyone what has been in the back of lots of people's minds; that it isn't.

There's also a smaller point that if your leaders are using these tax haven set ups and are benefitting from laws that advantage the rich at the expense of state finances (where the spending is proportionally more on the poor, and rightly so), then they may have a vested interest to protect the rich over the poor. Given the poor are plenty more numerous than rich, that won't fly in a democracy....