Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And as for the whole ‘someone on £500k pays more tax than someone on £30k so what’s fair’; I didn’t quite realise the cost of everything rose with your own earnings…!

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make there. You seem to have almost quoted something I wrote earlier but I said someone paying 20% of £500k pays significantly more tax than someone paying 20% of £25k. Are you disputing that? Or are you suggesting that everyone should have the same level of disposable income irrespective of income?

I'm not keen on people who earn huge amounts managing to pay very small amounts of tax by using loopholes but as I've said before in many cases it seems to be not just legal but encouraged and as MF has said there are often other reasons for the scheme that also result in avoidance e.g. a footballer my set themselves up as a company as they employ others and get image rights etc. or more commonly self-employed people setting themselves up as limited companies gives them tax benefits but separates professional and personal liabilities.

It's more that because the cost of everything else doesn't rise, earning more is still an advantage.

Bluntly having 50% taken of £300k vs 20% of 50k still leaves the £300k person with significant more purchasing power.

The difference in life for earnings between £15k-£30k is significantly bigger than the difference between £1m and £2m, right?

Jez mon

Is the end of the Tax story, that the poor people felt on balance that life was better off without their condescending rich see you next Tuesday of a "friend"?

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ooooor, you've found an example where people have simplified it in a very specific way in order to suit their own persuasion.

The point about individuals going abroad and businesses locating where the environment is amenable to them is very relevant. Your simplistic idea of fairness would actually drive tax revenue down.

But you missed the bit about how the tenth man now sits on his own at home wondering whether the small amount of money he didn't get back in tax was worth getting into a strop now he is on his own and friendless. And his friends are probably glad he's gone as clearly he didn't value their friendship much anyway.

Either you like it here or you don't. If you have a lot of wealth and are happy to leave your home country so that the numbers in your bank account can be a bit bigger then you'd probably leave anyway.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more that because the cost of everything else doesn't rise, earning more is still an advantage.

Bluntly having 50% taken of £300k vs 20% of 50k still leaves the £300k person with significant more purchasing power.

The difference in life for earnings between £15k-£30k is significantly bigger than the difference between £1m and £2m, right?

In summary, some people are better off than others.
Twas ever thus. And always will be. I'll stack shelves for £300k at 50% if that's your solution.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more that because the cost of everything else doesn't rise, earning more is still an advantage.

Bluntly having 50% taken of £300k vs 20% of 50k still leaves the £300k person with significant more purchasing power.

The difference in life for earnings between £15k-£30k is significantly bigger than the difference between £1m and £2m, right?

In summary, some people are better off than others.
Twas ever thus. And always will be. I'll stack shelves for £300k at 50% if that's your solution.

That's not really the summary is it?

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

hopkinb wrote:

In my experience, people who rise to the top, do so by employing a mixture of plausible bullshyte, @rselicking and crucially, claiming credit for success, but delegating failure.

Dammit, rumbled :P Apart from the arris licking that is, I delegate that.

You know what they say, sh1t trickles downwards and credit trickles upwards...

A saying I like is that a company is like a tree of monkeys. Look down you see a bunch of smiling faces. Look up you see a bunch of @rseholes.

Although it falls down on the smiling faces bit. In most cases it's a load of faces wanting to bar you fall so they can take your place or just to see you fail. Failure in superiors gives pleasure in a lot of workplaces.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more that because the cost of everything else doesn't rise, earning more is still an advantage.

Bluntly having 50% taken of £300k vs 20% of 50k still leaves the £300k person with significant more purchasing power.

The difference in life for earnings between £15k-£30k is significantly bigger than the difference between £1m and £2m, right?

In summary, some people are better off than others.
Twas ever thus. And always will be. I'll stack shelves for £300k at 50% if that's your solution.

That's not really the summary is it?

Please give a concise summary then or I'll interpret it as I wish.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more that because the cost of everything else doesn't rise, earning more is still an advantage.

Bluntly having 50% taken of £300k vs 20% of 50k still leaves the £300k person with significant more purchasing power.

The difference in life for earnings between £15k-£30k is significantly bigger than the difference between £1m and £2m, right?

In summary, some people are better off than others.
Twas ever thus. And always will be. I'll stack shelves for £300k at 50% if that's your solution.

That's not really the summary is it?

Please give a concise summary then or I'll interpret it as I wish.

Positive Impact of earnings on lifestyle reduce something like exponentially as earnings increase (since the cost of everything stays the same). That's the main defence against the argument that progressive tax rates are inhernetly 'unfair'.

Beyond the broader argument that heavy inequality is detrimental to all sorts of things in society. There's a reason you got the Communist revolution in Russia; here's a clue, it's not 'cos it was all so equal beforehand...

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more that because the cost of everything else doesn't rise, earning more is still an advantage.

Bluntly having 50% taken of £300k vs 20% of 50k still leaves the £300k person with significant more purchasing power.

The difference in life for earnings between £15k-£30k is significantly bigger than the difference between £1m and £2m, right?

In summary, some people are better off than others.
Twas ever thus. And always will be. I'll stack shelves for £300k at 50% if that's your solution.

That's not really the summary is it?

I'm not quite sure what the summary is. Where do you feel fairness lies? Should we live in some (truly) communist society where everyone pools and shares their wealth and resources? It always sounds good in theory, John Lennon should have written a song about it, but as we found when people tried to put it into practice the nature of some humans is always to be richer and / or more powerful than others.

Whilst I think the balance is slightly out in this country I really don't think it is as bad as some make out. I would rather the tax free earnings increase still further and an increase on the basic level of tax to offset it and bring in some extra revue to support benefits but don't forget that, though the PC brigade don't like to admit it, there are also plenty at the other end of the wealth spectrum that play the system for their benefit.

TheBigBean

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more that because the cost of everything else doesn't rise, earning more is still an advantage.

Bluntly having 50% taken of £300k vs 20% of 50k still leaves the £300k person with significant more purchasing power.

The difference in life for earnings between £15k-£30k is significantly bigger than the difference between £1m and £2m, right?

In summary, some people are better off than others.
Twas ever thus. And always will be. I'll stack shelves for £300k at 50% if that's your solution.

That's not really the summary is it?

Please give a concise summary then or I'll interpret it as I wish.

You need a basic amount of money to survive. Each extra pound you earn is needed incrementally less. Someone who has £10bn pounds would struggle to argue that they needed another £1b.

kingstongraham

Matthewfalle wrote:

Ooooh - I go out for one night to price up some tarmacing and I see that there is a whole new page of stuff here.

What's been occurring bud? Anything I need to know, see.

Stevo used the same source material for justification as Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Didn't think anyone would stoop to that level.

pblakeney

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more that because the cost of everything else doesn't rise, earning more is still an advantage.

Bluntly having 50% taken of £300k vs 20% of 50k still leaves the £300k person with significant more purchasing power.

The difference in life for earnings between £15k-£30k is significantly bigger than the difference between £1m and £2m, right?

In summary, some people are better off than others.
Twas ever thus. And always will be. I'll stack shelves for £300k at 50% if that's your solution.

That's not really the summary is it?

Please give a concise summary then or I'll interpret it as I wish.

You need a basic amount of money to survive. Each extra pound you earn is needed incrementally less. Someone who has £10bn pounds would struggle to argue that they needed another £1b.

Right. An extreme example to make a point. A point better made than Rick's above.
That is white and black. We are agreed that this is a grey subject. Everyone has different opinions as to where grey turns to black. Some think it is where the legal lines are drawn, some where their opinion thinks it should be.
19 pages of fluff and nonsense.

Pross

Mr Goo wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As a judge has said recently in a tax case, morality has no place in this court room.[/color]

Who was that judge?
Murder is morally wrong. Is he or are you now saying that we should just throw ethics and morals out the window and live in an anarchic and chaotic state. Most of our basic laws have a basis traced back to the 10 commandments, which if you ignore the fact they came from a religious text, are actually a set of rules to live by a decent set of ethics and morals. So I think that answer from your judge is b0ll0x.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system in this country works. Laws are not made in the courtroom or by judges. As you say, laws reflect the morals and ethics (of the time, which are subject to change - see issues such as homosexuality, adultery, abortion etc.) but this is done in Parliament. You then have a legal system that determines whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect someone broke those laws in which case they go to court and a jury determines if the evidence supports the belief that they have broken said law. That decision should be taken purely on the facts and the details of the law as written. If, at the courtroom stage, jurors start using their own morals and ethics (prejudice) in making their decisions then there is a real risk of a miscarriage of justice. For example, imagine a jury sitting in on case where a father has beaten up a man for having a consensual / legal sexual relationship with his son. The evidence and facts of the case show that an assault was undertaken but the members of the jury are all homophobic and don't believe a man should have sex with another man, they therefore justify the assault as upholding their morals and ethics and find the assailant not guilty. Therefore, the judge is right - once a case reaches court morals should not be considered as the law has already taken them into account.

The same applies with the tax system, it's a straightforward case of whether tax laws have been broken or not. There will obviously be some technical argument regarding interpretation of the law (as there often is in legal cases) but ultimately the verdict should be made on whether the law has definitively been broken (whether intentionally or not). I think I'm right that in more complex financial cases now the decision is made my judges rather than a jury but could be wrong on that. Presumably this is because most of us would struggle to understand the complexities and be prone to making judgement on moral or ethical grounds.

TheBigBean

Pross wrote:

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system in this country works. Laws are not made in the courtroom or by judges.

Common law is.

Tax isn't that simple. Everything requires interpretation. It is naive to suggest that everything within the leaks is legal.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

No it fcuking well isnt and you know it. utterly simplistic,you yourself have said that banks wont move many workers as London offers soooo much more.. schools, culture, history, dining, 5% tax or close a few loop holes wont make londons millionaires suddenly move to Frankfurt... brexit might though!

You have to be self employed to be vat registered and have a decent turn-over, not open to the vast majority who r on PAYE regardless, when my mate tried to get his KTM450 as a business purchase as he used it to travel about the lanes to price jobs, he was told no chance as a enduro bike is clearly a leisure purchase! just like a jet!

many poorer people dont get back a cent in working benefits as they dont have kids or pay rent.

Nice rant, and conveniently free of fact or evidence. Your point is what?

So you re found out and then standard retort..... come on it s getting boring.

Are you denying that for the vast majority on PAYE claiming back VAT is nt an option? or that to be VAT registered your vat taxable turn over is 85k in any 12month period...... or that living at home and having no children means no working benefits......

Your early post (posts?) were the one free of facts or evidence.

Last time I checked that was the threshold above which you have to be VAT registered, not the minimum.

Pross

TheBigBean wrote:

Pross wrote:

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system in this country works. Laws are not made in the courtroom or by judges.

Common law is.

Tax isn't that simple. Everything requires interpretation. It is naive to suggest that everything within the leaks is legal.

I wouldn't disagree with that, in fact I've said it somewhere above. However, if it's illegal then they will presumably be prosecuted for tax evasion and it is still then a principle of law rather than morals / ethics. Common law is just precedent set by interpretations of the law as written isn't it? It still isn't really formed by a moral or ethical point of view.(From my vague recollection of the few post-pub lunch Contract Law lectures I managed to stay awake through!).

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

No it fcuking well isnt and you know it. utterly simplistic,you yourself have said that banks wont move many workers as London offers soooo much more.. schools, culture, history, dining, 5% tax or close a few loop holes wont make londons millionaires suddenly move to Frankfurt... brexit might though!

You have to be self employed to be vat registered and have a decent turn-over, not open to the vast majority who r on PAYE regardless, when my mate tried to get his KTM450 as a business purchase as he used it to travel about the lanes to price jobs, he was told no chance as a enduro bike is clearly a leisure purchase! just like a jet!

many poorer people dont get back a cent in working benefits as they dont have kids or pay rent.

Nice rant, and conveniently free of fact or evidence. Your point is what?

So you re found out and then standard retort..... come on it s getting boring.

Are you denying that for the vast majority on PAYE claiming back VAT is nt an option? or that to be VAT registered your vat taxable turn over is 85k in any 12month period...... or that living at home and having no children means no working benefits......

Your early post (posts?) were the one free of facts or evidence.

Last time I checked that was the threshold above which you have to be VAT registered, not the minimum.

Yep, it's basically a balance of whether you would be able to reclaim more VAT than you have to pay (plus some additional work). So potentially a chance for the self-employed 'little man' to avoid tax

kingstongraham

Pross wrote:

Yep, it's basically a balance of whether you would be able to reclaim more VAT than you have to pay (plus some additional work). So potentially a chance for the self-employed 'little man' to avoid tax

Surely if you can reclaim more VAT than you have to pay, then you are doing something wrong?

TheBigBean

Pross wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Pross wrote:

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system in this country works. Laws are not made in the courtroom or by judges.

Common law is.

Tax isn't that simple. Everything requires interpretation. It is naive to suggest that everything within the leaks is legal.

I wouldn't disagree with that, in fact I've said it somewhere above. However, if it's illegal then they will presumably be prosecuted for tax evasion and it is still then a principle of law rather than morals / ethics. Common law is just precedent set by interpretations of the law as written isn't it? It still isn't really formed by a moral or ethical point of view.(From my vague recollection of the few post-pub lunch Contract Law lectures I managed to stay awake through!).

If it is illegal, and there is sufficient legally obtained evidence to give a realistic chance of prosecution, then they will be prosecuted. In the absence of such evidence it doesn't become legal, it just doesn't get prosecuted. I made the comparison before with doping - doping offences in France are not usually prosecuted. The reason being that the threshold of proof for a ban is much lower than the threshold for prosecution.

kingstongraham

KingstonGraham wrote:

Pross wrote:

Yep, it's basically a balance of whether you would be able to reclaim more VAT than you have to pay (plus some additional work). So potentially a chance for the self-employed 'little man' to avoid tax

Surely if you can reclaim more VAT than you have to pay, then you are doing something wrong?

Just thought - unless what you are selling is zero rated.

rjsterry

If you were, say, a freelance joiner, then a turnover of £85K wouldn't be any great shakes. You would be spending out a lot on materials and tools, so your earnings might only be 20-25% of that. Obviously being VAT registered if you are just selling your time in one form or another makes less sense as you have very little to offset against the VAT you charge. Can ease cashflow, though.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Pross wrote:

Yep, it's basically a balance of whether you would be able to reclaim more VAT than you have to pay (plus some additional work). So potentially a chance for the self-employed 'little man' to avoid tax

Surely if you can reclaim more VAT than you have to pay, then you are doing something wrong?

Just thought - unless what you are selling is zero rated.

Like new build construction work.

slowbike

KingstonGraham wrote:

Pross wrote:

Yep, it's basically a balance of whether you would be able to reclaim more VAT than you have to pay (plus some additional work). So potentially a chance for the self-employed 'little man' to avoid tax

Surely if you can reclaim more VAT than you have to pay, then you are doing something wrong?

You could be selling zero rated goods ...

kingstongraham

Slowbike wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Pross wrote:

Yep, it's basically a balance of whether you would be able to reclaim more VAT than you have to pay (plus some additional work). So potentially a chance for the self-employed 'little man' to avoid tax

Surely if you can reclaim more VAT than you have to pay, then you are doing something wrong?

You could be selling zero rated goods ...

Yeah, I should have thought of that.

slowbike

I suspect that HMRC will be looking at the report in detail and trying to establish if there are any illegal setups that have been reported.
Meanwhile, everyone gets up in arms about these tax avoidance schemes - forgetting that, for many anyway - the amount paid by the celebrity to the tax accountants in order avoid the tax is more than they'll pay in tax anyway.

There are very few people who will pay more in tax than they have to - and if we could all afford to buy the services of a tax pro to save us paying more tax then we would - although in most cases, the cost of the advice would easily outstrip the amount saved.

slowbike

KingstonGraham wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Pross wrote:

Yep, it's basically a balance of whether you would be able to reclaim more VAT than you have to pay (plus some additional work). So potentially a chance for the self-employed 'little man' to avoid tax

Surely if you can reclaim more VAT than you have to pay, then you are doing something wrong?

You could be selling zero rated goods ...

Yeah, I should have thought of that.

Yes you should ... now go and write out 1000 times - "I must think through all posibilities before I post" ... and no use of copy/paste!

Matthewfalle

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more that because the cost of everything else doesn't rise, earning more is still an advantage.

Bluntly having 50% taken of £300k vs 20% of 50k still leaves the £300k person with significant more purchasing power.

The difference in life for earnings between £15k-£30k is significantly bigger than the difference between £1m and £2m, right?

In summary, some people are better off than others.
Twas ever thus. And always will be. I'll stack shelves for £300k at 50% if that's your solution.

That's not really the summary is it?

Please give a concise summary then or I'll interpret it as I wish.

You need a basic amount of money to survive. Each extra pound you earn is needed incrementally less. Someone who has £10bn pounds would struggle to argue that they needed another £1b.

Right. An extreme example to make a point. A point better made than Rick's above.
That is white and black. We are agreed that this is a grey subject. Everyone has different opinions as to where grey turns to black. Some think it is where the legal lines are drawn, some where their opinion thinks it should be.
19 pages of fluff and nonsense.

Hey - don't go calling my stuff fluff and nonsense.

Do you know how often I banged my head against the wall whilst writing that stuff?

rick_chasey

So article in FT suggesting pressure from NGOs, regulators & media means overseas territories are likely fo make moves to improve their transparency.

No bad thing, right?

pblakeney

Matthewfalle wrote:

Hey - don't go calling my stuff fluff and nonsense.

Do you know how often I banged my head against the wall whilst writing that stuff?

Too many times in the past would be my guess. Thousands?

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

So article in FT suggesting pressure from NGOs, regulators & media means overseas territories are likely fo make moves to improve their transparency.

No bad thing, right?

Broadly, but it needs to respect civil liberties and not try to force legislation from one specific country on to all the others in the way that FATCA does.