Not a tax haven.

[Shake me up Judy]

Sultan: You keep knocking out the argument that because governments waste millions of pounds worth of tax revenue that therefore it's immoral. We know the first part but you're arguing a non sequitur. There's nothing unfair or immoral about paying tax; it's not paying it that's the problem. I have no problem paying tax as long as everyone else pays it, and accept it as part of the social contract between the individual and the State. I know government waste is huge but that's a political and economic question, not a moral one. I agree with most of your posts but not on this one.....

Edited April 4, 2016 by Shake me up Judy

[woolley]

There's nothing unfair or immoral about paying tax and those that do not should be brought to book. I am more concerned about the global corporates taking the mickey to be honest because the magnitude and damage of abuse by them is far greater than that by individuals. At the same time however, under the social contract you mention, it is incumbent upon states not to waste the money paid to them by taxpayers and I see progress on this seemingly intractable problem as being just as important as progress on evasion.

[thesultanofsheight]

Sultan: You keep knocking out the argument that because governments waste millions of pounds worth of tax revenue that therefore it's immoral. We know the first part but you're arguing a non sequitur. There's nothing unfair or immoral about paying tax; it's not paying it that's the problem. I have no problem paying tax as long as everyone else pays it, and accept it as part of the social contract between the individual and the State. I know government waste is huge but that's a political and economic question, not a moral one. I agree with most of your posts but not on this one.....

I understand your view. My standpoint is that there is no social contract (I think I have said this before in another thread) because that assumes that tax money is more often than not spent wisely for the benefit of society as a whole. Rarely does that happen. If it was a proper social contract then I'm absolutely 100% in agreement with what you said and that we should all pay in more and that there would be a moral argument against not doing so. But any extra taxes raised are unlikely to be spent on increased benefits for the poor, or for better services for the vulnerable, or on improved public services for all. In Western Eurooe they're more than likely to be pissed away on civil servants salaries, massive pension liabilities, cheese mountains, and fighting wars and funding committees and quangos that nobody needs. If we ever got into a social contract situation I would change my view completely as that would be a sort of co-operative system that took money from the rich and made the lives of everyone else better. But I don't believe we will ever get there in any Western system.

 

Edited: In fact I would like to see a social contract in the IOM. People would, I am sure, be prepared to pay more if it wasn't pissed away and was actually spent to change lives and improve services. At the moment if you want to establish a social contract donate to charity or give your time to a good cause as it all goes right to the best possible thing that you want it to and it will probably improve someone's life. What will paying more tax here do in the short term? Probably go towards plugging a pension liability that's out of control anyway. It won't (unfortunately) go on roads, schools, and the Police or the NHS.

Edited April 4, 2016 by thesultanofsheight

[Non-Believer]

Given the fights that there have been to push through, enact and impose social legislation of any sort over the years on IoM, I won't be holding my breath for a social contract of any sort.....

[thesultanofsheight]

Given the fights that there have been to push through, enact and impose social legislation of any sort over the years on IoM, I won't be holding my breath for a social contract of any sort.....

It's a shame though as increasingly we are a very divided society and the focus now is clearly on exposing "scroungers" on benefits, cutting benefits for the disabled, cutting things like NHS dental support, and other NHS services, as well as employing civil servants to do stuff the charities like DASH etc used to provide at little cost to support failed "policies" and "strategies" dreamed up to keep people in jobs not to support the actual needs of the population.

Edited April 4, 2016 by thesultanofsheight

[Roger Mexico]

My standpoint is that there is no social contract (I think I have said this before in another thread) because that assumes that tax money is more often than not spent wisely for the benefit of society as a whole.

 

No there is always a social contract. Unless you are prepared to go away and live on a remote, unclaimed island or asteroid with no input from the rest of humanity, you have a relationship with your local State organisation(s), like it or not. You may not think that it carries out all its functions very well, but, especially in a democracy, that doesn't absolve you from making your contribution.

 

Of course in a democracy there are other contributions an engaged citizen should make, as you are doing here. But paying for the state still has to be done, even as you try to improve it.

[hillshepherd]

man the ramparts guys.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/tax-havens-reformed-outlawed-panama-papers

[hillshepherd]

 

My standpoint is that there is no social contract (I think I have said this before in another thread) because that assumes that tax money is more often than not spent wisely for the benefit of society as a whole.

 

No there is always a social contract. Unless you are prepared to go away and live on a remote, unclaimed island or asteroid with no input from the rest of humanity, you have a relationship with your local State organisation(s), like it or not. You may not think that it carries out all its functions very well, but, especially in a democracy, that doesn't absolve you from making your contribution.

 

Of course in a democracy there are other contributions an engaged citizen should make, as you are doing here. But paying for the state still has to be done, even as you try to improve it.

 

but it does'nt half make your blood boil.

[the stinking enigma]

time to plant me spuds and root out the old fishing rod i think

[thesultanofsheight]

 

My standpoint is that there is no social contract (I think I have said this before in another thread) because that assumes that tax money is more often than not spent wisely for the benefit of society as a whole.

 

No there is always a social contract. Unless you are prepared to go away and live on a remote, unclaimed island or asteroid with no input from the rest of humanity, you have a relationship with your local State organisation(s), like it or not. You may not think that it carries out all its functions very well, but, especially in a democracy, that doesn't absolve you from making your contribution.

 

Of course in a democracy there are other contributions an engaged citizen should make, as you are doing here. But paying for the state still has to be done, even as you try to improve it.

You're miss reading what I said. I said there is no moral argument over having to pay tax not that people are absolved from paying tax. The fact is though quite legally people are able to avoid tax and that is their choice as there is no real morality issue that compels them to pay the absolute maximum they could pay. Whilst it's legal to pay slightly less (in certain circumstances) it's voluntary and the tax system is flawed anyway - it's not some benign mechanism for social good - it also funds wars and colossal wastage. If the state offered a genuine social contract (along the lines of a communal style of public/government engagement proposed by the likes of Rousseau) which would enhance lives and society I would agree there is scope to raise a moral question. The fact is though there isn't.

Edited April 4, 2016 by thesultanofsheight

[Bellefield]

man the ramparts guys.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/tax-havens-reformed-outlawed-panama-papers

so that's it all sorted then, the UK government is responsible for the formation of all tax havens, and it just needs to stop banks and anything else operating in "tax havens", what a marvellously Socialist way of dealing with the problem.... or am I thinking of Stalinist?

 

Worst piece of journalism I've seen in a long time, even for the guardian.

[Monkey boy]

 

Sultan: You keep knocking out the argument that because governments waste millions of pounds worth of tax revenue that therefore it's immoral. We know the first part but you're arguing a non sequitur. There's nothing unfair or immoral about paying tax; it's not paying it that's the problem. I have no problem paying tax as long as everyone else pays it, and accept it as part of the social contract between the individual and the State. I know government waste is huge but that's a political and economic question, not a moral one. I agree with most of your posts but not on this one.....

I understand your view. My standpoint is that there is no social contract (I think I have said this before in another thread) because that assumes that tax money is more often than not spent wisely for the benefit of society as a whole. Rarely does that happen. If it was a proper social contract then I'm absolutely 100% in agreement with what you said and that we should all pay in more and that there would be a moral argument against not doing so. But any extra taxes raised are unlikely to be spent on increased benefits for the poor, or for better services for the vulnerable, or on improved public services for all. In Western Eurooe they're more than likely to be pissed away on civil servants salaries, massive pension liabilities, cheese mountains, and fighting wars and funding committees and quangos that nobody needs. If we ever got into a social contract situation I would change my view completely as that would be a sort of co-operative system that took money from the rich and made the lives of everyone else better. But I don't believe we will ever get there in any Western system.

 

Edited: In fact I would like to see a social contract in the IOM. People would, I am sure, be prepared to pay more if it wasn't pissed away and was actually spent to change lives and improve services. At the moment if you want to establish a social contract donate to charity or give your time to a good cause as it all goes right to the best possible thing that you want it to and it will probably improve someone's life. What will paying more tax here do in the short term? Probably go towards plugging a pension liability that's out of control anyway. It won't (unfortunately) go on roads, schools, and the Police or the NHS.

 

I think you make some very good points & have a lot of sympathy with what you say. The only problem with it is that opportunities to avoid taxes are not the same for everyone & those who can afford it most are in a much better position than those who can't, which is wrong on every level.

[Roger Mexico]

man the ramparts guys.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/tax-havens-reformed-outlawed-panama-papers

 

I think that sort of article demonstrates the foolishness of the attitude of Bell (and some on here) of responding to criticisms of being a 'tax haven' by going "We're not! We're not! We're not! . . ." like some spoilt toddler and somehow thinking that answers it.

 

If instead we should admit we were (as we are), point out how most countries are in some respects and suggest that the UK, Ireland and so on need to consider their own positions first, not to mention the loopholes in the laws and treaties they themselves have made, that allow such things to happen.

[thesultanofsheight]

I agree with that Monkeyboy; equally those who pay the most who have options to pay slightly less are highly unlikely to be claiming any form of state support at any time (not even the NHS) and at the other end of the scale those who have no options to avoid tax are those more likely to be benefiting from services from the system. I'm not defending any of this Panama stuff by the way as that is in a different league. I'm just saying I think that's its a legal and not a moral debate. It's easy to change laws. Its not so easy to change what people think is moral or not.

Edited April 4, 2016 by thesultanofsheight

[notwell]

The laws in the UK particularly are clear. They encourage individuals, companies and plc's to avoid tax I'm numerous ways.

 

London is the epicentre of tax avoidance. The truth is for all the drum banging politics the UK governments have been and are complicit in tax avoidance. They can't really function without it.