Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Wage Slave wrote:Yeah, well it's not often I find myself nodding along with a Max Hastings opinion piece but it would seem quite a few people (moral angels or not ) agree. Including quite a few Icelanders who look like they are going to get rid of their PM over it.
No wonder people who pay tax are so sick of the spivvy elite
Originally in Private Eye wrote:He has non-domicile tax status and owns his media businesses through a complex structure of offshore holdings and trusts which entail him paying almost no UK tax on his income, investments or wealth.
wagyl wrote:You come back again to wealthy people. And you were the one who first made an issue of the wealth. Is the moral crime here that people have 626 million US dollars in shares? Would you be less likely to declare the actions to be immoral if it was 626 US dollars worth? Either the wealth of the people involved is relevant or irrelevant. Please make up your mind whether morality changes with dollar value. And whether theft is OK if your family is hungry.
legion wrote: However the taxman tends to go after soft targets, which with MyNumber got a whole lot softer.
wagyl wrote:legion wrote: However the taxman tends to go after soft targets, which with MyNumber got a whole lot softer.
But aren't we all moral angels, with nothing to hide and nothing to fear? If Wage Slave or his family do it, it is morally appropriate. If he regards the sums as out of his league, it must be morally wrong. It is all so simple, so black and white.
wagyl wrote:legion wrote: However the taxman tends to go after soft targets, which with MyNumber got a whole lot softer.
But aren't we all moral angels, with nothing to hide and nothing to fear? If Wage Slave or his family do it, it is morally appropriate. If he regards the sums as out of his league, it must be morally wrong. It is all so simple, so black and white.
wagyl wrote:No, I don't know it. Are you telling me that you or your family engage in morally inappropriate behaviour? Or are you telling me that very wealthy people are entitled to use expensive lawyers and still not have their morality come into question? You are all over the place in this thread. And you still haven't explained why stealing a loaf of bread is relevant here, even if your urchins are starving.
Wage Slave wrote:wagyl wrote:No, I don't know it. Are you telling me that you or your family engage in morally inappropriate behaviour? Or are you telling me that very wealthy people are entitled to use expensive lawyers and still not have their morality come into question? You are all over the place in this thread. And you still haven't explained why stealing a loaf of bread is relevant here, even if your urchins are starving.
Good grief. Talk about being all over the place. OK, enough. Let's just agree to differ on the basic point at issue. You believe that someone utilising allowances explicitly written into tax law while keeping the money in their own name is no different morally from funneling money into anonymous offshore accounts that are secretly under your control in order to make money simply disappear as far as tax is concerned. This is because the end result is the same - legally, no tax or less tax is payable as a result. Fine. Let's leave it there.
wangta wrote:Wage Slave wrote:wagyl wrote:No, I don't know it. Are you telling me that you or your family engage in morally inappropriate behaviour? Or are you telling me that very wealthy people are entitled to use expensive lawyers and still not have their morality come into question? You are all over the place in this thread. And you still haven't explained why stealing a loaf of bread is relevant here, even if your urchins are starving.
Good grief. Talk about being all over the place. OK, enough. Let's just agree to differ on the basic point at issue. You believe that someone utilising allowances explicitly written into tax law while keeping the money in their own name is no different morally from funneling money into anonymous offshore accounts that are secretly under your control in order to make money simply disappear as far as tax is concerned. This is because the end result is the same - legally, no tax or less tax is payable as a result. Fine. Let's leave it there.
Yes, waygl tends to get pompous on some threads and is doing so here. Your position in your posts on this thread is clear. It's obvious you are following the tax laws and some more to be as transparent as you can. The old post waygl dragged up has no bearing on this.
Modern tax codes in all first world industrialised democracies allow for minimisation of tax to be paid and those laws are there to be used. That's why tax accountants are so numerous. The problem starts when those taxpayers who earn income as opposed to living off assets as the wealthy, the super rich and protected people such as politicians who also can be in positions of conflict of interest, pay tax but those other categories of people engage in tax evasion or make laws that promote and protect their interests.
If anybody here ever has the time, research what the politicians in your countries have voted themselves. This always includes ways to boost benefits and perks so as to come out on top financially and offset any taxes they may have to pay. It makes interesting reading and when you avail yourself of what 'our representatives' do to take advantage of their positions, build up their personal wealth and pass it on to their families as well as the riches of networks and connections they make, then you will begin to understand why people consider taxation to be a form of theft or at least usually unethical and unfair to many income tax payers.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay tax - that just means we also need to beware of all the propaganda about how wonderful it is to pay our fair share for services etc when our political establishment don't and not only don't but deliberately set out to reap disproportionate benefits from their time in office. From the cosiness of US Congress and Senate members with lobbyists for some of the most cynical and unethical businesses in the world to the Australian pollies continually voting themselves wage increases of 7 percent and sheltered retirement riches known as 'golden handshakes', do some homework.
The problem with the tax minimisation structuring that we are hearing about in the media is that it is evasion. Shunting money around the globe by sending it to Dublin and then to Amsterdam through a string of shell companies and concealing just who the shareholders etc are by nominating some public faces before the money then ends up elsewhere in another disguise is definitely unethical. It is avoiding taxation laws that the majority of citizens of those countries and the countries the money originated in, are subject to.
Out old friend Bono who has harangued us for years to send money to Africa through so called charities he started or supports slides out of paying tax by using an offshore structure in the Netherlands. More fool anybody who gave money to anything associated with him. Let those who ask for money for charity and earn big money, pay it.
The prime minister of Iceland stepped down on Tuesday, according to his deputy, succumbing to political pressure two days after an enormous leak of documents from a secretive Panamanian law firm about offshore shell companies and tax shelters.
The prime minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, was the first prominent political casualty from the document leaks known as the Panama Papers, which have shed a harsh light on the private financial activities of many rich and powerful people.
....
The news that Iceland’s prime minister would step aside caused celebration across the tiny island nation of 323,000, which is still recovering from the global financial crisis eight years ago.
dimwit wrote:I don't think so. Most of the list seems to be third world thugs who will just turn off the media if any fuss is made of it. What is interesting to me is the lack of Japanese names on the list. Every year the Japanese government publishes a highly improbable list of the assets of members of the diet, and my first thought is a trip to the Caribbean.
dimwit wrote: ... What is interesting to me is the lack of Japanese names on the list ...
Wage Slave wrote:There are exemptions available to everyone if you wish to take advantage of them - That's not the same thing as a loophole or what is under discussion here. And then there are wholly artificial schemes designed to remove money from view and shelter it from tax. That is not a careless loophole in the tax code, that is money being hidden away in the financial system by people with sufficient funds to do it. You cannot write a tax code to prevent it unless you get really draconian and give the tax authorities the right to just declare schemes artificial and solely for the purpose of artificially avoiding tax. Or to just say we don't believe you when you say the money was handed to a corporation in Panama over which you have no control or interest in.
As it stands what is happening is not illegal. But, it is highly opaque so if someone is doing something illegal we have no way of detecting it. We only have their word for it that nothing illegal is going on.
According to tax law in the UK if you gift assets at least 7 years before you pass away then they are not liable for inheritance tax. This allowance is available to everyone rich or poor and doesn't require a lawyer or anything else. You can simply do it at any time if you so choose. It entirely depends on individual free choice and how much you trust your family.
Samurai_Jerk wrote:How about this? You have to report gross income regardless of where it's made to the tax authority of the country you are a resident of.
Isn't that true in most situations? Isn't that why liberal democracies generally prohibit searching people or their property without probable cause? The cops just have to trust your hard drive isn't full of kiddie pr0n unless they have a search warrant which (at least in theory) will only be granted based on solid evidence.
How is that fair or moral? If I get all my ducks in a row and get hit by a bus the day after, my heirs pay more taxes than the heirs of the guy next to me who managed to jump out of the way just in time.
Wage Slave wrote:That is already the case in Japan and other countries. The problem is, how to you detect undeclared income when it can be so comprehensively hidden? And it doesn't stop there. First set up a wholly owned subsidiary company whose only income is from the country it was registered in. Then structure the business so although it makes piles of money all the profits disappear in artificial and/or inflated operating expenses to the parent company offshore. For example Starbucks UK claimed they they were making a loss every year. Meanwhile Starbucks UK was paying a royalty charge on every cup of coffee they sold as if that act were like playing someone's song for profit.
It's different because in this situation you cannot search or investigate no matter what probable cause you may have.
I'm not sure I want to argue how fair or moral it is, but it happens to explicitly be the law. You could argue taxing all gifts over a certain value at any time is fairer. That's what Japan does I believe. However, as it stands the UK has decided not to tax any gifts except if they are defined as inheritance.
Samurai_Jerk wrote:So you only want to talk about morality or fairness vis-a-vis the law when it suits you? It seems that you don't like the fact that it's SOP for large organizations and very wealthy people to follow the letter of the law while not honoring the spirit of the law. Most people probably feel the same way. I certainly do. However, I don't blame them for doing it. I blame a system that lets them get away with it.
Takechanpoo wrote:how many gaijin friends and acquaintances of yours seen in this list?!
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/search?c ... =on&adr=on
Wage Slave wrote: it is available to everyone on an equal basis
wagyl wrote:Wage Slave wrote: it is available to everyone on an equal basis
You keep pointing to this as an item of difference. What is preventing you form setting up a Panamanian Corporation (apart from your robust moral compass)?
wuchan wrote:wow.
I thought every long term FG had accounts in Singapore and (insert low tax country here).
inflames wrote:wuchan wrote:wow.
I thought every long term FG had accounts in Singapore and (insert low tax country here).
Well, I did simply incorporate a Hong Kong company then the Japanese subsidiary, but basically made money to buy apartments a loan from the hong kong company to the Japanese company and set the level basically at what the rent is, just to make sure any profits are basically not in Japan.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests