Not a tax haven.

[Barrie Stevens]

How about Liberia? Years ago I tried to crack open a local IOM company only to find that it was in turn controlled in Monrovia, Liberia under a Liberian company of the same name and they had total secrecy as regards the beneficial owners....which I had reason to believe was one of the Coroners at the time ably assisted by the then T W Cains advocates and a local CSP in Hill Street.

[pongo]

But they aren't lawyers and they clearly aren't that well informed if they don't realise that everything that's been done is legal. As long as every person obeys the laws of the land then they can manage the amount of tax they pay (within limits) and the laws allow for that. What is wrong with that? We don't live in a totalitarian country where people's morality or alliances to their government are required to be tested against the total amount of tax they could pay. Sadly these people will believe anything - but it doesn't make it true though.

I don't see that it makes much difference whether or not it is legal. In terms of the way in which this will influence politics, public opinion, trends etc. The perception for many is that they are enduring austerity imposed by an elite who have it all stitched-up. That perception links the left, many of those who are anti-EU and many conspiracy theorists etc in general.

 

It's clearly all a bit stupid - but everything has been very stupid for ages now. Not just this. And it's got its own momentum.

Edited April 10, 2016 by pongo

[pongo]

We've gone back to about where we were in 1976-82

Mrs Thatcher and Edward Heath before her were both state educated. Mrs Thatcher also offered ordinary people the promise of bettering their lot. The Conservatives today are not offering new opportunities.

[thesultanofsheight]

 

But they aren't lawyers and they clearly aren't that well informed if they don't realise that everything that's been done is legal. As long as every person obeys the laws of the land then they can manage the amount of tax they pay (within limits) and the laws allow for that. What is wrong with that? We don't live in a totalitarian country where people's morality or alliances to their government are required to be tested against the total amount of tax they could pay. Sadly these people will believe anything - but it doesn't make it true though.

 

I don't see that it makes much difference whether or not it is legal. In terms of the way in which this will influence politics, public opinion, trends etc. The perception for many is that they are enduring austerity imposed by an elite who have it all stitched-up. That perception links the left, many of those who are anti-EU and many conspiracy theorists etc in general.

 

It's clearly all a bit stupid - but everything has been very stupid for ages now. Not just this. And it's got its own momentum.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But if we're arguing about morals let's start with Iraq/Afganistan and then move back from there. The inequality isn't just about the economy is it? That's just part of it. The whole world in the last 10 years has become massively insecure; we have mass bombings and shootings in Europe and the Middle East, planes being blow out of the sky, tourist hotels being peppered with machine gun fire, and men women and children being massacred daily. With the Panama leaks it's still worth noting that despite this 'revelation' people are inevitably still laundering money for ISIS, people are still bankrolling ever more frequent terrorist events, and people are still selling bombs and armaments around the world daily. The leaks seem to have done nothing about that. In that context Cameron's dad and tax avoidance doesn't rank high on my scale at all, as Cameron's mums IHT Bill isn't going to be spent to try to blow my plane out of the sky when I go on holiday. All these foolish people and their pseudo moral arguments are looking in completely the wrong places for me. They're like sheep being deliberately herded in the wrong direction.

Edited April 10, 2016 by thesultanofsheight

[pongo]

if we're arguing about morals

We're not.

 

Pragmatically, it's futile wishing that the public mood were differently focused or that the trends were all pointing in a different direction.

[EORH]

I think there is more to come over these papers, also if Cameron is publishing his tax returns, the rest of the UK Parliament will be under a obligation to as well.

Corbyn is doing hisl, Pandora's Box is fully opened yet, the lawyers offices in Panama have been raided so what is there to be revealed yet.

Edited April 10, 2016 by EORH

[thesultanofsheight]

 

if we're arguing about morals

 

We're not.

Pragmatically, it's futile wishing that the public mood were differently focused or that the trends were all pointing in a different direction.

I pointed out that I think the public mood is foolish not that I wish it to be looking elsewhere. That said the real issue here is terrorism and the general instability of the global political system and the Panama leaks have done nothing to change this. The real issues have got nothing to do with whether tax avoidance is moral or legal or whatever else. But let's get the pitchfork out for Cameron, and hopefully there will be no major terrorist event in London when they're out trying to hang him for trying to legally save a few quid in inheritance tax by getting a gift from his mum.

Edited April 10, 2016 by thesultanofsheight

[NoTail]

Woolley hit the nail on the head a few pages ago. The whole system is "designed" to assist the privileged and wealthy to pay less tax than the masses think they should. This has always been the case as the privileged and the wealthy run the country and make the laws.

 

The problem is that a rather larger group of oinks have joined in. Now there is a large shortfall of cash to pay for hospitals and schools and wars.

 

This is not so much a moral thing in my view. A portion of society has been caught with its trousers down and the rest are enjoying the embarrassment.

[Roger Mexico]

Tax avoidance is not immoral. It's logical and legal.

 

And anyone would do it given the chance.

 

Well of course something can be immoral and legal (nothing can be 'logical' of itself - that refers to a process). You can't say that anything is moral purely because it is legal, unless you want your morals to be defined by the House of Keys. And good luck with telling your spouse that it is perfectly moral, even admirable, to cheat on them because it isn't against the law.

 

As the whether 'anyone' would do it YouGov asked this week:

As you may know, there is a difference between tax AVOIDANCE, whereby companies/people use artificial but legal methods to minimise the tax they pay, and tax EVASION, where companies/people act illegally to pay less tax, or no tax at all.

In general, do you think it is acceptable or unacceptable to LEGALLY avoid paying tax?

It is acceptable to legally avoid tax 27%

It is unacceptable to legally avoid tax 62%

Don’t know 11%

There's some political differences, but even those who voted Conservative in 2015 are opposed 50-42 (and UKIP 67-26). There's a difference in class, with ABC1s less anti as are Londoners (against their normal political leanings) and women.

YouGov also asked:

If you had the the opportunity to take part in a tax avoidance scheme and there was little chance of the tax authorities discovering it, do you think you would?

I would probably take part in it 23%

I would probably not take part in it 58%

Don't know 19%

 

So far from everyone being willing to do do so, as you imply, only about a quarter would.

[notwell]

 

Tax avoidance is not immoral. It's logical and legal.

 

And anyone would do it given the chance.

Until the banking collapse of 2008 nobody cared less, within reason whether anyone used the IOM to keep their money. However it left the UK short of money and they looked at plugging the gaps in the UK income revenue. The IOM and its constant boasting how successful they were, it's businesses, films and other industries, it got back to UK civil servants - look at the UK/IOM reciprocal health arrangement. The Conservatives got in

2010, and tax avoidance became a very hot topic. It will soon get to the stage that anyone with an offshore bank account will be made to be a social outcast, even if they declare it. Every time Bell, Teare, Skelly and Shimmin open their mouths and start the boasts of growth, growth liken to China, how prosperous the IOM is - the more the UK will sit up and assume the island is encouraging tax avoidance- and other unsavoury activities- even if it is entirely legal

Funnily enough the UK government seem happy that the tata takeover is an offshore company.

[oldmanxfella]

You might as well wipe your arse in a YouGov survey - they prove nothing other than a number of boring socialist types have completed a survey based on their view of what they think the survey should shiw based on the headlines in the papers this week.

[WTF]

so if i usually charge 15 pounds an hour, but i charge someone 12 pounds an hour, am i avoiding paying tax???

[notwell]

 

Tax avoidance is not immoral. It's logical and legal.

 

And anyone would do it given the chance.

Well of course something can be immoral and legal (nothing can be 'logical' of itself - that refers to a process). You can't say that anything is moral purely because it is legal, unless you want your morals to be defined by the House of Keys. And good luck with telling your spouse that it is perfectly moral, even admirable, to cheat on them because it isn't against the law.

 

As the whether 'anyone' would do it YouGov asked this week:

 

As you may know, there is a difference between tax AVOIDANCE, whereby companies/people use artificial but legal methods to minimise the tax they pay, and tax EVASION, where companies/people act illegally to pay less tax, or no tax at all.

 

In general, do you think it is acceptable or unacceptable to LEGALLY avoid paying tax?

 

It is acceptable to legally avoid tax 27%

 

It is unacceptable to legally avoid tax 62%

 

Dont know 11%

There's some political differences, but even those who voted Conservative in 2015 are opposed 50-42 (and UKIP 67-26). There's a difference in class, with ABC1s less anti as are Londoners (against their normal political leanings) and women.

 

YouGov also asked:

 

If you had the the opportunity to take part in a tax avoidance scheme and there was little chance of the tax authorities discovering it, do you think you would?

 

I would probably take part in it 23%

 

I would probably not take part in it 58%

 

Don't know 19%

So far from everyone being willing to do do so, as you imply, only about a quarter would.

 

I wonder how many of those 62% have isa's? Avoiding tax. Making pension contributions . avoiding tax. Giving assets away. Avoiding tax. Have a company and using every means to reduce the tax they pay.

 

And that's before you get to the portion of that 62% that evade it rather than avoid it.

[notwell]

so if i usually charge 15 pounds an hour, but i charge someone 12 pounds an hour, am i avoiding paying tax???

No. You're doing yourself out of £2.40 an hour.

[oldmanxfella]

so if i usually charge 15 pounds an hour, but i charge someone 12 pounds an hour, am i avoiding paying tax???

Yes, and everyone on benefits. They're legally avoiding tax by choosing not to work and pay tax!