The Urgency of Addressing Iran’s Nuclear Threat

[sirineou]

On 11/6/2017 at 5:08 AM, VocalNeal said:

If the rich gave all their money to the poor everyone would get say 100 quid each and spend it down the pub and then what. Who's is going to invest in the future! 

 

Woe is me , imbeciles.

 

In recent years all UK citizens got equal opportunity education free. If one is not clever enough or hard working enough then they stay at the bottom. Same as in nature.

 

Yes because we all know the poor spend all their time at the pub getting drunk while the queen works her ass off making the things we need to live.

[Naam]

On 11/6/2017 at 12:56 PM, Rancid said:

I'd be more shocked if one of the rich and famous was actually paying all their taxes like the serfs are being forced to with threat of jail. It's a strange old world where the filthy rich can never be rich enough, and are happy to see the rest of us starve if it help them gather a few more dollars.

now you made me cry

[wavemanwww]

1 hour ago, the guest said:

Why do you think the Pope is surrounded by high walls?

To protect him! Dah

[Airbagwill]

On 11/8/2017 at 8:09 AM, jayboy said:

Some points:

 

1.There is no suggestion that she has done anything illegal.

 

2.Almost certainly she would not have known about the details of how her investments were structured.She has investment advisers.

 

3.Tax avoidance is completely different from tax evasion.

 

4.Most pensioners will have some part of their pension as income from investments sheltered offshore.

 

5.There is no requirement to pay as much tax as possible.There is only a requirement to obey the law.

 

"

3.Tax avoidance is completely different from tax evasion." - they are in fact very similar, except one is legal and the other isn't. Either way they deprive the people of income that they would normally expect to pay through the use of either "loopholes" or "illegal" activities.

Morally they are on the same level. - rich people trying to keep more of what they already have too much of.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Airbagwill

[7by7]

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 10:45 AM, RuamRudy said:

Tax evasion and tax avoidance, combined, cost the UK exchequer around £7 billion. In an effort to clamp this down, the government employs around 700 people.

Benefit fraud and over payments, however, costs us less than half that - £3 billion. However, the government employs 3,765 people to stamp that out.  Seems a bit skewed to me.

Source.

 First point; did you read the conclusion of your source? It would appear not, so here it is for you

Quote

The SNP told us it acknowledged the HMRC figure was just for the very rich and not a like-for-like comparison with the DWP staff. It said it wanted to highlight the lack of transparency with the figures, given that it’s not possible to get specific breakdowns of what HMRC staff are doing, beyond looking at individual teams like the Affluent Unit.

That may well be the case, but Mr Robertson’s claim still wasn’t justified by the available figures.

(7by7 emphasis)

 

Second point; what these papers reveal is the ways that the Duchy of Lancaster and others, including celebrities employed by the BBC, have used tax avoidance to reduce their tax bills. Tax avoidance is legal; no one named in these papers has broken any law. 

 

Every single self employed person in the UK, from a sole trader up, uses legal methods of decreasing their taxable income to avoid paying as much tax as possible. For most, particularly sole traders, this is through claiming legitimate business expenses. 

 

The marriage allowance is another way, used by many, of legitimately avoiding tax.

 

Do you damn these people in the same way that you damn those who use offshore accounts etc. to legally reduce their tax burden?

 

Tax evasion is illegal and comes in many forms.

 

Have you ever had any work done by a builder or other tradesperson who offered to reduce their bill if you paid in cash? 

 

Why do you think some (not all, of course) tradespeople do this? It's obvious, if paid in cash that money will not appear in their accounts and they will not be paying tax on it. 

 

That is one form of tax evasion, and is illegal. Difficult to quantify, of course, but illegal cash in hand payments are estimated to cost the Treasury as much as £6.2 billion per year (source)! Where is your condemnation of this practice?

 

As for your anti monarchy sentiments; an opinion to which you are entitled. But tell me, do you really believe having an elected head of state would be any cheaper? 

[observer90210]

If the british people and british society  accept that their royals dodge UK tax, bear lavish  bank accounts, placed in off shore tax havens, while the rest of the people go through a different plight with the tax man, retirement pensions and so on...what to say ?...their country, their monarchy......they chose what they deem fit and fair for themselves..and God Save them of course !!!!

Edited November 12, 2017 by observer90210

[7by7]

10 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

If the british people and british society  accept that their royals dodge UK tax, bear lavish  bank accounts, placed in off shore tax havens, while the rest of the people go through a different plight with the tax man, retirement pensions and so on...what to say ?...their country, their monarchy......they chose what they deem fit and fair for themselves..and God Save them of course !!!!

 

Unlike a certain Donald Trump, the British royal family have not done anything illegal concerning their tax, or any other, affairs.

 

Unless you know different.

[observer90210]

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Unlike a certain Donald Trump, the British royal family have not done anything illegal concerning their tax, or any other, affairs.

 

Unless you know different.

Not debating on the legitimacy, but rather on the fact that if a high profile public emblematic posture, is compatible with offshore investments within entities that have a empathic eye and facilitate tax evasion.

 

No hard feelings please.

Edited November 12, 2017 by observer90210

[7by7]

Facilitate tax evasion?

 

As has been stressed in every single report about this affair, no one is being accused of doing anything illegal, let alone evading tax.

 

Some may find using such offshore trusts etc. to legally avoid tax by legally reducing their tax liability morally reprehensible; but it is not just rich individuals who do so.

 

You mentioned retirement pensions before: many pension funds invest some of their money in this way; as do ISAs, unit trusts and other forms of investments used by ordinary, working people.

 

Off shore investment and the tax benefits thereof isn't just for the rich!

 

 

[sanemax]

38 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

Not debating on the legitimacy, but rather on the fact that if a high profile public emblematic posture, is compatible with offshore investments within entities that have a empathic eye and facilitate tax evasion.

 

No hard feelings please.

It isnt tax "evasion", its tax "avoidance"

One is legal, the other isnt 

[observer90210]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Facilitate tax evasion?

 

As has been stressed in every single report about this affair, no one is being accused of doing anything illegal, let alone evading tax.

 

Some may find using such offshore trusts etc. to legally avoid tax by legally reducing their tax liability morally reprehensible; but it is not just rich individuals who do so.

 

You mentioned retirement pensions before: many pension funds invest some of their money in this way; as do ISAs, unit trusts and other forms of investments used by ordinary, working people.

 

Off shore investment and the tax benefits thereof isn't just for the rich!

 

 

you are so right...I was a bit naive in considering that the investment institutions cited either in the Panama or Paradise papers do not facilitate tax evasion. Not to mention that these financial institutions regularly facilitate VAT evasion when private jets are purchased by europeans and registered on the Isle of Man. Just a smalle exemple pal.

 

P.S. when I was refering to pensions I was not refering to the institutions but on the pension amounts and benefits that regularly get cut for the pensioneers, but I am confident that you understood

[observer90210]

7 minutes ago, sanemax said:

It isnt tax "evasion", its tax "avoidance"

One is legal, the other isnt 

Absolutely, but as mentioned above, legal or not, when high profile public emblematic figures are involved.........(and the rest is in my initial posts pal).

Edited November 12, 2017 by observer90210

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, observer90210 said:

Absolutely, but as mentioned above, legal or not, when high profile public emblematic figures are involved.........(and the rest is in my initial posts pal).

Same rules and laws for everyone , unless you are suggesting that "high profile public figures" should have different rules and laws to everyone else

[Airbagwill]

From the Economist

Angus Deaton, a Nobel prize-winning economist—say tax havens serve no useful purpose, merely allowing a financial elite to dodge regulations and financial obligations that apply to everyone else

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

From the Economist

Angus Deaton, a Nobel prize-winning economist—say tax havens serve no useful purpose, merely allowing a financial elite to dodge regulations and financial obligations that apply to everyone else

Pensions funds , ISAs and many other investments are put in off shore accounts . It is complying with regulations

[Naam]

9 hours ago, sanemax said:

It isnt tax "evasion", its tax "avoidance"

One is legal, the other isnt 

in many cases offshore investments via offshore companies are neither established to avoid nor to evade tax. dozens of other reasons exist which not only justify but make it mandatory as the only solution, e.g. distribution of inheritance exactly according to a last will. a lot of jurisdictions have their own inheritance laws which are not at all in line with the wishes of the bequeather(s). in our case we have established a trust that holds most of our assets and will distribute only proceeds without touching the capital in case of our demise.

[7by7]

20 hours ago, observer90210 said:

you are so right...I was a bit naive in considering that the investment institutions cited either in the Panama or Paradise papers do not facilitate tax evasion. Not to mention that these financial institutions regularly facilitate VAT evasion when private jets are purchased by europeans and registered on the Isle of Man. Just a smalle exemple pal.

Again; nothing illegal has been revealed by these papers! 

 

I assume that you do not have any form of personal pension or workplace pension plan; after all, both of these are tax efficient ways of saving for one's retirement and the funds of each are often invested offshore!

 

I assume you have also never taken out an ISA, endowment policy or similar tax efficient savings or investment plan.

 

Neither have you ever claimed the VAT back on items bought in one country for export to another, or purchased anything in any duty free shop anywhere.

 

Nor used Gift Aid when donating to a charity so the charity can claim the tax you paid on that money back from HMRC.

 

Doing any of the above and many other examples too numerous to list here are all, like the activities revealed in these papers, perfectly legal ways of avoiding tax.

 

Given your comments here, for you to have taken advantage of the tax benefits of any of them would be extremely hypocritical of you...pal!

[observer90210]

10 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Again; nothing illegal has been revealed by these papers! 

 

I assume that you do not have any form of personal pension or workplace pension plan; after all, both of these are tax efficient ways of saving for one's retirement and the funds of each are often invested offshore!

 

I assume you have also never taken out an ISA, endowment policy or similar tax efficient savings or investment plan.

 

Neither have you ever claimed the VAT back on items bought in one country for export to another, or purchased anything in any duty free shop anywhere.

 

Nor used Gift Aid when donating to a charity so the charity can claim the tax you paid on that money back from HMRC.

 

Doing any of the above and many other examples too numerous to list here are all, like the activities revealed in these papers, perfectly legal ways of avoiding tax.

 

Given your comments here, for you to have taken advantage of the tax benefits of any of them would be extremely hypocritical of you...pal!

really...you are missing the point..

 

no offence, but my pension issues are personnal so are any eventual investments I may have or not made, so allow me to politely mention that it is none of (your) anyone's business my dear fellow...and no need to make caty assumptions just out of a lack of concrete and polite arguments.

 

the point is that when you are are a top level figure, with a high public profile, there is the notion of "politically correct",

that "I assume".....seems to be something totally alienated in your notions of elementary decency in public office or when representing a nation.  So what can I say..."god save your queen".. "cheers"..etc.....happy ?!!!

Edited November 13, 2017 by observer90210

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

<snip>

no offence, but my pension issues are personnal so are any eventual investments I may have or not made, so allow me to politely mention that it is none of (your) anyone's business

As personal as the investments revealed in the leaking of these papers.

 

Unless you believe that wealthy people do not deserve their privacy. Is that the point you say I am missing?

 

If these papers revealed widespread tax evasion or other illegal activities I would be among the first to demand that those involved face justice. But they don't; they have revealed no illegal activities at all.

 

Unless you believe that wealthy people should be subject to stricter laws than the rest of us; that what is legal for us should be illegal for them. Is that the point you say I am missing?

 

The more you post, the more you remind me of Jimmy Carr: publicly lambasting celebrities who use offshore accounts to avoid tax, whilst privately doing just that himself!

[observer90210]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

As personal as the investments revealed in the leaking of these papers.

 

Unless you believe that wealthy people do not deserve their privacy. Is that the point you say I am missing?

 

If these papers revealed widespread tax evasion or other illegal activities I would be among the first to demand that those involved face justice. But they don't; they have revealed no illegal activities at all.

 

Unless you believe that wealthy people should be subject to stricter laws than the rest of us; that what is legal for us should be illegal for them. Is that the point you say I am missing?

 

The more you post, the more you remind me of Jimmy Carr: publicly lambasting celebrities who use offshore accounts to avoid tax, whilst privately doing just that himself!

well..well...seems that I really upset you...sorry if that is the case as I do not find any merit by doing so behind a computer...(thanks btw for quoting just a part of my post, that is not very fair play)

 

nothing to do with wealth, personnal issues or even if it's legal or not...it's just a matter of decency and politicaly correct,  when you are a public figure my dear fellow...heads of state have toppled off for less...

 

however I trust the British to be wise enough to make an idea for themselves on the Queen's latest scandal as reported in the press.....

 

anyhow, out of respect for the forum and fellow users I won't take up any more space here as we could bat and ball for ages or perhaps you prefer to  bait and brawl...whatever...have a nice day and best regards to the House of Windsor

[Naam]

33 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

54 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

<snip>

no offence, but my pension issues are personnal so are any eventual investments I may have or not made, so allow me to politely mention that it is none of (your) anyone's business

As personal as the investments revealed in the leaking of these papers.

 

Unless you believe that wealthy people do not deserve their privacy. Is that the point you say I am missing?