Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

Matthewfalle

But who's moral standards are you applying this to? Why is it immoral to protect your own assets for your family/chosen ones?

Why should Richard's moral standards - which we can all guess are poles apart from mine - be subjugated to me? Or Pinno's? Or Steve's?

Surely to bring moral judgement into law is taking out the impartiality of the law and turning it into one person's domain?

sungod

wtf have morals got to do with taxes? it's like christians arguing over tithing, no morals involved

Stevo_666

sungod wrote:

wtf have morals got to do with taxes? it's like christians arguing over tithing, no morals involved

Absolutely nothing with regard to the point we are debating - according to the law. See case law above

Matthewfalle

And the law is amoral.

Stevo_666

Matthewfalle wrote:

But who's moral standards are you applying this to? Why is it immoral to protect your own assets for your family/chosen ones?

Why should Richard's moral standards - which we can all guess are poles apart from mine - be subjugated to me? Or Pinno's? Or Steve's?

Surely to bring moral judgement into law is taking out the impartiality of the law and turning it into one person's domain?

This exactly why the law states that morals do not come into tax - in the context of what we are discussing here.

My first post in the thread picked up on this, but it seems we need to keep making the point as people are determined to ignore the reality

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

But who's moral standards are you applying this to? Why is it immoral to protect your own assets for your family/chosen ones?

Why should Richard's moral standards - which we can all guess are poles apart from mine - be subjugated to me? Or Pinno's? Or Steve's?

Surely to bring moral judgement into law is taking out the impartiality of the law and turning it into one person's domain?

There is a moral component to all law - you could see it as an (imperfect) aggregate of the morals of the majority of a particular state - but these are then 'fixed' and codified into whatever statute by parliament (or whatever equivalent legislative process) so that we can have a workable system of laws and enforcement. If the general public mood swings to wanting stricter tax legislation, then sooner or later, the law will be changed by parliament to make that the case. It's just that this is a slow process.

This is why I pointed out earlier that it doesn't really matter if the outrage at the Panama papers is well informed or not. If there are votes to be won, the law will end up being changed eventually. If MF and Stevo think that is a bad thing then they need to persuade people (outside Cake Stop) of the benefits of the current system

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But who's moral standards are you applying this to? Why is it immoral to protect your own assets for your family/chosen ones?

Why should Richard's moral standards - which we can all guess are poles apart from mine - be subjugated to me? Or Pinno's? Or Steve's?

Surely to bring moral judgement into law is taking out the impartiality of the law and turning it into one person's domain?

There is a moral component to all law - you could see it as an (imperfect) aggregate of the morals of the majority of a particular state - but these are then 'fixed' and codified into whatever statute by parliament (or whatever equivalent legislative process) so that we can have a workable system of laws and enforcement. If the general public mood swings to wanting stricter tax legislation, then sooner or later, the law will be changed by parliament to make that the case. It's just that this is a slow process.

The wording in the case law above is very clear. This is the current situation, regardless of what some may want.

briantrumpet

Matthewfalle wrote:

But who's moral standards are you applying this to? Why is it immoral to protect your own assets for your family/chosen ones?

Why should Richard's moral standards - which we can all guess are poles apart from mine - be subjugated to me? Or Pinno's? Or Steve's?

Surely to bring moral judgement into law is taking out the impartiality of the law and turning it into one person's domain?

That's exactly what governments are there to do: to define laws (based on some sort of moral systems) that the majority can live with (but with which probably many people will disagree - e.g motorists and the system of financial penalties for misdemeanours). If you accept that there needs to be some system of government, then you necessairly accept that some people are going to disagree with some of the standards set out in the legal underpinning of that system of government.

The other option is anarchy.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But who's moral standards are you applying this to? Why is it immoral to protect your own assets for your family/chosen ones?

Why should Richard's moral standards - which we can all guess are poles apart from mine - be subjugated to me? Or Pinno's? Or Steve's?

Surely to bring moral judgement into law is taking out the impartiality of the law and turning it into one person's domain?

There is a moral component to all law - you could see it as an (imperfect) aggregate of the morals of the majority of a particular state - but these are then 'fixed' and codified into whatever statute by parliament (or whatever equivalent legislative process) so that we can have a workable system of laws and enforcement. If the general public mood swings to wanting stricter tax legislation, then sooner or later, the law will be changed by parliament to make that the case. It's just that this is a slow process.

The wording in the case law above is very clear. This is the current situation, regardless of what some may want.

Indeed, and where it isn't, hard cases will refine the law. I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

This exactly why the law states that morals do not come into tax.

My first post in the thread picked up on this, but it seems we need to keep making the point as people are determined to ignore the reality

Would it be morally justifiable to tax someone on £20k a year at 80%, and someone on £200k at 20%?

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But who's moral standards are you applying this to? Why is it immoral to protect your own assets for your family/chosen ones?

Why should Richard's moral standards - which we can all guess are poles apart from mine - be subjugated to me? Or Pinno's? Or Steve's?

Surely to bring moral judgement into law is taking out the impartiality of the law and turning it into one person's domain?

There is a moral component to all law - you could see it as an (imperfect) aggregate of the morals of the majority of a particular state - but these are then 'fixed' and codified into whatever statute by parliament (or whatever equivalent legislative process) so that we can have a workable system of laws and enforcement. If the general public mood swings to wanting stricter tax legislation, then sooner or later, the law will be changed by parliament to make that the case. It's just that this is a slow process.

The wording in the case law above is very clear. This is the current situation, regardless of what some may want.

Indeed, and where it isn't, hard cases will refine the law. I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

Thank you. I rest my case.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

But who's moral standards are you applying this to? Why is it immoral to protect your own assets for your family/chosen ones?

Why should Richard's moral standards - which we can all guess are poles apart from mine - be subjugated to me? Or Pinno's? Or Steve's?

Surely to bring moral judgement into law is taking out the impartiality of the law and turning it into one person's domain?

There is a moral component to all law - you could see it as an (imperfect) aggregate of the morals of the majority of a particular state - but these are then 'fixed' and codified into whatever statute by parliament (or whatever equivalent legislative process) so that we can have a workable system of laws and enforcement. If the general public mood swings to wanting stricter tax legislation, then sooner or later, the law will be changed by parliament to make that the case. It's just that this is a slow process.

The wording in the case law above is very clear. This is the current situation, regardless of what some may want.

Indeed, and where it isn't, hard cases will refine the law. I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

Thank you. I rest my case.

Splendid.

Just that we're in a different court room from you, listening to a different case.

rjsterry

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

This exactly why the law states that morals do not come into tax.

My first post in the thread picked up on this, but it seems we need to keep making the point as people are determined to ignore the reality

Would it be morally justifiable to tax someone on £20k a year at 80%, and someone on £200k at 20%?

That would be the imperfect bit in my previous post. There's plenty of poorly drafted legislation that doesn't really reflect what Parliament wanted it to do, let alone the moral viewpoint of the electorate as a whole.

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

This exactly why the law states that morals do not come into tax.

My first post in the thread picked up on this, but it seems we need to keep making the point as people are determined to ignore the reality

Would it be morally justifiable to tax someone on £20k a year at 80%, and someone on £200k at 20%?

That would be the imperfect bit in my previous post. There's plenty of poorly drafted legislation that doesn't really reflect what Parliament wanted it to do, let alone the moral viewpoint of the electorate as a whole.

Well, quite so. But we seem to have a little reluctance to accept that there is any moral dimension whatsoever to tax law.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

This exactly why the law states that morals do not come into tax.

My first post in the thread picked up on this, but it seems we need to keep making the point as people are determined to ignore the reality

Would it be morally justifiable to tax someone on £20k a year at 80%, and someone on £200k at 20%?

That would be the imperfect bit in my previous post. There's plenty of poorly drafted legislation that doesn't really reflect what Parliament wanted it to do, let alone the moral viewpoint of the electorate as a whole.

Well, quite so. But we seem to have a little reluctance to accept that there is any moral dimension whatsoever to tax law.

I've shown you specifically where in tax law morals are excluded in terms of what we are discussing in this thread and you agreed, so job done.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

This exactly why the law states that morals do not come into tax.

My first post in the thread picked up on this, but it seems we need to keep making the point as people are determined to ignore the reality

Would it be morally justifiable to tax someone on £20k a year at 80%, and someone on £200k at 20%?

That would be the imperfect bit in my previous post. There's plenty of poorly drafted legislation that doesn't really reflect what Parliament wanted it to do, let alone the moral viewpoint of the electorate as a whole.

Well, quite so. But we seem to have a little reluctance to accept that there is any moral dimension whatsoever to tax law.

I've shown you specifically where in tax law morals are excluded in terms of what we are discussing in this thread and you agreed, so job done.

And at no point did I disagree with your claim about the application of tax law, so I'm not sure if you're worth the fee you'll be claiming.

Now, how about that other part where you claim that "morals do not come into tax"? That's a rather broader claim than "specifically where in tax law morals are excluded".

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

This exactly why the law states that morals do not come into tax.

My first post in the thread picked up on this, but it seems we need to keep making the point as people are determined to ignore the reality

Would it be morally justifiable to tax someone on £20k a year at 80%, and someone on £200k at 20%?

That would be the imperfect bit in my previous post. There's plenty of poorly drafted legislation that doesn't really reflect what Parliament wanted it to do, let alone the moral viewpoint of the electorate as a whole.

Well, quite so. But we seem to have a little reluctance to accept that there is any moral dimension whatsoever to tax law.

I've shown you specifically where in tax law morals are excluded in terms of what we are discussing in this thread and you agreed, so job done.

And at no point did I disagree with your claim about the application of tax law, so I'm not sure if you're worth the fee you'll be claiming.

Now, how about that other part where you claim that "morals do not come into tax"? That's a rather broader claim than "specifically where in tax law morals are excluded".

A wider point from the one that was discussed above and I can see why you want to move it on to that, but not sure what relevance that is to the thread.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

This exactly why the law states that morals do not come into tax.

My first post in the thread picked up on this, but it seems we need to keep making the point as people are determined to ignore the reality

Would it be morally justifiable to tax someone on £20k a year at 80%, and someone on £200k at 20%?

That would be the imperfect bit in my previous post. There's plenty of poorly drafted legislation that doesn't really reflect what Parliament wanted it to do, let alone the moral viewpoint of the electorate as a whole.

Well, quite so. But we seem to have a little reluctance to accept that there is any moral dimension whatsoever to tax law.

I've shown you specifically where in tax law morals are excluded in terms of what we are discussing in this thread and you agreed, so job done.

And at no point did I disagree with your claim about the application of tax law, so I'm not sure if you're worth the fee you'll be claiming.

Now, how about that other part where you claim that "morals do not come into tax"? That's a rather broader claim than "specifically where in tax law morals are excluded".

A wider point from the one that was discussed above and I can see why you want to move it on to that, but not sure what relevance that is to the thread.

I think you might have done the moving when you said that "morals don't come into tax", which is patently absurd.

rjsterry

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

This exactly why the law states that morals do not come into tax.

My first post in the thread picked up on this, but it seems we need to keep making the point as people are determined to ignore the reality

Would it be morally justifiable to tax someone on £20k a year at 80%, and someone on £200k at 20%?

That would be the imperfect bit in my previous post. There's plenty of poorly drafted legislation that doesn't really reflect what Parliament wanted it to do, let alone the moral viewpoint of the electorate as a whole.

Well, quite so. But we seem to have a little reluctance to accept that there is any moral dimension whatsoever to tax law.

I've shown you specifically where in tax law morals are excluded in terms of what we are discussing in this thread and you agreed, so job done.

And at no point did I disagree with your claim about the application of tax law, so I'm not sure if you're worth the fee you'll be claiming.

Now, how about that other part where you claim that "morals do not come into tax"? That's a rather broader claim than "specifically where in tax law morals are excluded".

A wider point from the one that was discussed above and I can see why you want to move it on to that, but not sure what relevance that is to the thread.

I think you might have done the moving when you said that "morals don't come into tax", which is patently absurd.

Agreed. Specifically, the drafting of tax laws reflects the morals of the governing party whose policy the law is intended to enact. For example, the married couples allowance (and latterly the marriage allowance) reflects the Conservative Party's support for marriage.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

This exactly why the law states that morals do not come into tax.

My first post in the thread picked up on this, but it seems we need to keep making the point as people are determined to ignore the reality

Would it be morally justifiable to tax someone on £20k a year at 80%, and someone on £200k at 20%?

That would be the imperfect bit in my previous post. There's plenty of poorly drafted legislation that doesn't really reflect what Parliament wanted it to do, let alone the moral viewpoint of the electorate as a whole.

Well, quite so. But we seem to have a little reluctance to accept that there is any moral dimension whatsoever to tax law.

I've shown you specifically where in tax law morals are excluded in terms of what we are discussing in this thread and you agreed, so job done.

And at no point did I disagree with your claim about the application of tax law, so I'm not sure if you're worth the fee you'll be claiming.

Now, how about that other part where you claim that "morals do not come into tax"? That's a rather broader claim than "specifically where in tax law morals are excluded".

A wider point from the one that was discussed above and I can see why you want to move it on to that, but not sure what relevance that is to the thread.

I think you might have done the moving when you said that "morals don't come into tax", which is patently absurd.

Nope, the debate on the specific point of whether there is a moral obligation against legally minimising your tax is done. Just looks like you are trying to move the goal posts as you conceded on the point in question.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Nope, the debate on the specific point of whether there is a moral obligation against legally minimising your tax is done. Just looks like you are trying to move the goal posts as you conceded on the point in question.

You can swing the lead all you want and call people ignorant (legitimately or not ) but one thing is certain - you have one hell of a blind spot.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Nope, the debate on the specific point of whether there is a moral obligation against legally minimising your tax is done. Just looks like you are trying to move the goal posts as you conceded on the point in question.

You can swing the lead all you want and call people ignorant (legitimately or not ) but one thing is certain - you have one hell of a blind spot.

I think you may have had a blind spot on the last page:

All taxpayers have the right to arrange their affairs so as not to pay more than is legally due - there is even case law to support it in the UK. This quote from the relevant case which is part of current UK case law on tax:-
“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” Lord Clyde Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue.

What part of that don't you understand?

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Nope, the debate on the specific point of whether there is a moral obligation against legally minimising your tax is done. Just looks like you are trying to move the goal posts as you conceded on the point in question.

You can swing the lead all you want and call people ignorant (legitimately or not ) but one thing is certain - you have one hell of a blind spot.

I think you may have had a blind spot on the last page:

All taxpayers have the right to arrange their affairs so as not to pay more than is legally due - there is even case law to support it in the UK. This quote from the relevant case which is part of current UK case law on tax:-
“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” Lord Clyde Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue.

What part of that don't you understand?

I don't understand how much is made redundant by the Ramsey principle.

rjsterry

Surely that's a fairly simple test: does the arrangement have some purpose other than to reduce tax liability? That's not moral question. Going back several pages to RC's example of London 'brokers' and offshore traders, I would imagine that HMRC have looked at that and concluded that that passes the test (although they may be sailing very close to the wind if they got that stroppy about being mis-named).

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surely that's a fairly simple test: does the arrangement have some purpose other than to reduce tax liability? That's not moral question. Going back several pages to RC's example of London 'brokers' and offshore traders, I would imagine that HMRC have looked at that and concluded that that passes the test (although they may be sailing very close to the wind if they got that stroppy about being mis-named).

But the oft quoted Ayrshire judgement was in 1929. Ramsey was in the 1980s

From Redknapp through to Google I would question how much is legal and how much is HMRC incompetence.

TheBigBean

Do supporters of tax minimisation through legal means also support benefit maximisation through legal means?

pblakeney

TheBigBean wrote:

Do supporters of tax minimisation through legal means also support benefit maximisation through legal means?

Ooooo! Good question. I know a few people who are working the system.
I disapprove but it is all legal. Having a moan is all I can do.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Surely that's a fairly simple test: does the arrangement have some purpose other than to reduce tax liability? That's not moral question. Going back several pages to RC's example of London 'brokers' and offshore traders, I would imagine that HMRC have looked at that and concluded that that passes the test (although they may be sailing very close to the wind if they got that stroppy about being mis-named).

In fairness, I'm quite coloured in my view. Industry I used to recruit for has an extremely high propensity for corruption, and relied heavily on the opacity of less salubrious offshore locations to obscure their actions. One of the reasons I chose to leave tbh.

https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/a ... ty_trading

Commodity trading is a sector of significant strategic importance that is exposed to major corruption risks that are not always sufficiently known or acknowledged. Generating high financial flows, trading companies often operate in high-risk countries with weak governance, institutions, rule of law and limited state accountability. The sector is also notoriously opaque and poorly regulated, with low levels of transparency and accountability.

Against such a backdrop, corruption is widespread, with practices ranging from bribery, money and commodity laundering, and various forms of favouritism. A number of measures can be envisaged to mitigate corruption risks in commodity trading, including transparency of commodity sales, open and transparent tenders, transparency of payments, specific due diligence processes covering both the production conditions and trading partners, the establishment of supervisory authorities as well as transparency of beneficial ownership. Banks and financial intermediaries can also potentially play a role in the process.

For them, tax avoidance and opacity broadly went hand-in-hand.

I mean, the stories you heard, let alone the stuff that ended up getting published...https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... tin-russia
https://www.publiceye.ch/en/media/press ... _in_congo/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ngs-in-drc

The last link of which is directly related to what came out of the paradise reports.

As a general rule, certainly in that world, is that what's reported barely scratches the surface.

At least, that's how I read it.

pinno

...don't worry, the internationally renowned economist, tax accountant and future chancellor of the exchequer will be jumping on here at lunchtime to tell everybody it's all sweetness and light, 99.9999% of all transactions involving tax havens are legitimate, 'it's the way of the world', it's legal therefore it's fair', you are all deaf, you're not listening to what I am saying, I want to be CEO of Apple...
Even a right wing Republican is spouting rightiebollox apparently, so Stevo must be the only one who is right.

pinno

...and it's all legal and it's the way of the world and it improves our living standards and makes us competitive and if you don't like it you are spouting leftiebollox and you should phone your MP and get the law changed...